ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of OSC Charter

  • To: "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of OSC Charter
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:10:03 -0500

Thanks for the explanation Robin.  I agree with much of what you say but
am still concerned about the wording you added.  Let me use the RyC as
an example.  I don't think the RyC should have undo influence in terms
of how new Registry Stakeholder Group constituencies are formed.  I
believe the formation of a new constituency is more of a Council matter
than it is a Stakeholder Group issue or existing Constituency issue.  If
this makes any sense to you, maybe you can suggest alternative wording.
Also, I do home that Staff and/or Roberto will weigh in on this so that
we can make sure that the Charter is consistent with the Board
Recommendations.  I would really prefer that we get it right the first
time rather than coming back later and having to redo it.


        From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:19 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of OSC Charter
        Hi Chuck,

        I am trying to mitigate the cross-constituency meddling in the
affairs of other constituencies that is in the current draft.   What was
written in the draft was that rules would be established for forming
constituencies and it seemed to apply that these rules would be some
kind of "one-size-fits-all" way of establishing constituencies.  But the
needs and sizes of the various constituencies will vary - especially
between stakeholder groups.  I don't think NCUC should be telling the
commercial stakeholder group how to organize the constituencies within
that group and vice-versa.  There will always be disparity in the number
of participants between constituencies, and the ability of volunteers to
be as aggressive as paid lobbyists, etc., so trying to establish rules
to govern as if there were a level playing field does not reflect
reality.  I think constituencies and stakeholder groups should be given
as much flexibility as possible in their organization and we should not
try to hamstring this process with a zeal to impose uniform rules when
needs and situations are not uniform.  So while I'm not insistent on the
particular wording that I suggested, I am definitely not comfortable
with the way it is currently drafted for these reasons.


        On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

                Thanks Robin.  You added in two places, "stakeholder
groups are primarily responsible for establishing their own
constituencies".  I am not sure that is consistent with the Board
recommendations.  It is my understanding that intent was that it should
be possible for constituencies to self-form and that procedures should
be put in place to facilitate that.  That is quite different than what
you added.
                What do others think?
                Rob - it might be helpful for you to get some feedback
from Denise and maybe Roberto as Chair of the BGC.


                        From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
                        Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:05 PM
                        To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
                        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] Latest Draft Version of
OSC Charter
                        Oops -the file is now attached to this email -
apologies.   :-)  Robin 



        IP JUSTICE
        Robin Gross, Executive Director
        1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
        p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
        w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy