RE: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTIONS/SUMMARY: OSC-GNSO Operations Work Team 12 August Meeting

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kieren, thank you for your constructive input, most welcome and
appreciative.

Your first point makes sense to me and will ask our work team to consider
including such language as you are suggesting.

To your second point, thinking out loud, I am curious if the Council members
themselves are the ones to be expected to "explicitly discuss the content of
a summary analysis" or if the Council should make sure that such discussion
have occurred, or otherwise has been accounted for, prior to submitting its
recommendation to the Board.  The latter is more procedural minded in the
Council's role of "managing" the policy process vs. "explicitly discussing"
the content which infers Council members making interpretations towards a
making a judgment.  Thoughts welcome.

Ray



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:35 AM
To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTIONS/SUMMARY: OSC-GNSO Operations Work Team
12 August Meeting


Hello all, 

I realise I am coming to this very late in the day but I have two suggested
additions that I would like you to consider.


1. Re: closed meetings. Section 5.1. It says: "Except where determined by a
majority vote of members of the GNSO Council present that a closed session
is appropriate, meetings shall be open to physical or electronic attendance
by all interested persons." 


Would it be possible to include language that requires the Council to
register the votes and the reason for holding a closed session? The default
for accountability and transparency is to hold open sessions, so I think it
would be useful to record when that isn't the case. It would emphasise that
it is an exception and allow people to see why a meeting is closed.


2. One of the consistent complaints I hear from the community is that it
isn't clear how their input into, particularly, public comment periods has
any impact within ICANN itself. It was a main theme of the joint AC/SO
session in Sydney, for example. ("There is a lack of visibility of the
impact that volunteer input has on decision making..." -
http://syd.icann.org/acso)

Also under the organization's consultation principles approved by the Board
in Feb 2008, there is the provision that ICANN will "Request explicit
discussion of that summary and analysis by the relevant body while
discussing the topic under consideration." -
http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/community.htm#d


So could you add some wording in the Operating Procedures that says the
Council will explicitly discuss the content of a summary/analysis of a
relevant comment period while discussing the topic that the comment period
is about?

That way you emphasize the importance of community input while allowing the
Council to continue to make the actual decisions.



Thanks all,


Kieren



Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN



________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Ron Andruff [randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:35 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTIONS/SUMMARY: OSC-GNSO Operations Work Team
12 August Meeting

Dear all,

I support Wolf-Ulrich?s edits and additions.  With this email I confirm my
support for the language as written vis-à-vis Sections: 4.1, 5.8, 16, and
17.

Thank you,

RA


Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001



www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com>

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2009-08-13 06:47
To: julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTIONS/SUMMARY: OSC-GNSO Operations Work Team
12 August Meeting

All,

please find my comments/amendments to the related sections of the Operating
Procedures attached.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Julie Hedlund
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. August 2009 22:11
An: gnso-osc-ops
Betreff: [gnso-osc-ops] ACTIONS/SUMMARY: OSC-GNSO Operations Work Team 12
August Meeting
Dear Work Team members,

Here are the actions items and summary, which also are posted to the wiki
at: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team.  Please
let me know if you have any questions or additions.  The relevant documents
are attached and also posted to the wiki.  The next meeting will on 19
August at our regularly scheduled time of 1600 UTC.

Thank you,

Julie

Action Items:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure: URGENT: Prior to the meeting on 19
August Work Team members should review the document GNSO Operating
Procedures (attached) Sections: 4.1, 5.8, 16, and 17 and provide comments
concerning changes to the list. THESE SECTIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
2. Proposed GNSO Structure: Julie is collecting comments.
3. SOI/DOI Document: Julie will check on the status of the document with
ICANN legal staff.

Discussion Summary:
1. GNSO Council Rules of Procedure:
The Work Team revised sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5a, 5.6
and 5.7. They agreed that Work Team members could, if they wished, circulate
a document with just these revised sections to their Constituency's GNSO
Council representatives to give them a chance to see recommended changes
thus far and to see if they might have suggestions or questions. Ray agreed
to circulate the document to Chuck Gomes, Chair of the OSC (attached). For
next week's meeting, the team decided to address sections 4.1, 5.8, and 16.
Wolf-Ulrich noted that there is some language that has been proposed to be
deleted from the bylaws on absentee voting that should be included in the
revised procedures. He provided the language to Julie and she included it in
the revised document. After the meeting Julie also noted that there is
language pertaining to observers that has been deleted from the Bylaws that
also should be added to the procedures and she included it as a new Section
17 Observers.