[gnso-osc-ops] RE: GCOT Task

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck, I've cc'd our Work Team as well.  I am familiar with the
background on this one.I think this issue falls in our camp to discuss
within Rules of Procedure.

 

For those in our Work Team not familiar, the issue here is that on some
occasions the GNSO Council needs to communicate with other support
organizations, such as it did recently based upon a GAC request cited below.
Some felt that any sort of formal communication from the Council needs to be
at a minimum presented to the constituencies for review.in other words,
concern the Council is, or perhaps perceived, to be acting on its own or
acting on behalf of Constituencies without asking for input.  Reasonably
speaking, there are times the Council is in a position of having to make a
communication, sometimes in a short time frame to be responsive, sometimes
simply stating a position that has already been vetted.  So the question
becomes:  Under what conditions is it appropriate for Council to distribute
formal communications on behalf of the Council representing constituency
interests.  This is the overview of the issue.something for us to discuss.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:48 PM
To: Ray Fassett
Subject: GCOT Task

 

Ray,

 

The minutes of the last Council meeting haven't been approved yet but here
is an excerpt of them that I wanted to forward to you in advance.

 

"Item 6: Issue arising from
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf> GAC
Position Paper on Geographic Names 

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf 

Referring to the  <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf>
GNSO Council letter to the GAC Avri Doria raised the question of the
validity of the customary communication practise the Council used when a
response was needed in a short time-frame. It depends on Council members'
freedom to vote; some constituencies direct Council members how to vote and
expect them to stay within that direction, while other Council members are
the determiners for every vote. The former indicates that the constituency
approval cycle should be taken into account and a longer time period allowed
before the communication is sent in the name of the Council. 

In the Council's discussion a distinction was made between the issue and the
principle. The principle of drafting communications/letters in short time
frames, was generally supported by the Council while recognizing that on
certain issues it is impossible to get full support from everyone and that
acting as the Council does not necessarily encompass the full representation
of all the constituencies which is difficult to convey to the community. 

Avri Doria, proposed that the appropriate Operations Steering Committee work
team be tasked with documenting the process of submitting such
communications/letters for future reference. "

 

Chuck