[council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Fri Oct 10 16:02:04 UTC 2008
We will probably have to define 'full consensus' more precisely. Would
'observers' be included in full consensus? If so, then what is the
difference between being a regular member and an observer?
I agree with Avri that the SCs should be able determine whether
alternates are allowed. I personally would be supportive of that as
long as the alternates were brought up to speed before hand.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette at cov.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:27 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on
> the compositon of the OSC
>
> Given that we're talking about a "full consensus"
> decision-making threshold, what's the mechanism for
> rectifying a situation in which full consensus is not reached
> solely because of CIF views, but the CIF never actually
> becomes a constituency? In other words, what is the plan for
> handling issues on which, but for the CIF, full consensus
> would have been reached?
>
> Also, will members of the PPSC and OSC be permitted to
> designate alternates (1 per member) who can participate in
> the meetings in the event of an unavoidable scheduling conflict?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:23 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on
> the compositon of the OSC
>
>
> I don't think I would oppose this amendment as along as 'the
> requirements that need to be met to achieve this status' are
> clearly and objectively defined to include reasonable
> evidence that the group would be representative of a larger
> community stakeholder group. Some of the reasons against
> adding this amendment are: 1) the SCs could become too large
> to be effective; 2) it depends on a definition that we will
> not have until after we act on the motion; 3)the real work on
> implementation is going to happen at the Working Team level,
> not in the SCs, and the Working Teams should be open to all
> just WGs are.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 1:21 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the
> compositon
> > of the OSC
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My issue, one in which I was in a minority in the planning team,
> > concerns the membership of the GNSO Operations Steering Committee
> > (OSC) (page 12) .
> >
> > It has been my belief that a representative of any constituency-in-
> > formation should be included in the OSC as an participating
> > observer.
> > I define constituency-in-formation as one that has reached
> some status
>
> > as defined in the new constituency process where they are formal
> > candidates for acceptance.
> >
> > I believe that once a serious group of organizers have declared
> > themselves publicly and have fulfilled what ever requirements for
> > candidacy are set, they will have incurred some degree of
> expectation
> > concerning the way constituency and stakeholder operations are
> > organized and will have prepared themselves for membership according
> > to those expectations. If the operational structure is going to
> > change while they are in the application process, perhaps
> even change
> > in a way that is detrimental toward their membership possibilities,
> > they should have a voice in those deliberations. This can best be
> > achieved by allowing them to participate in the steering Committee
> > meetings as observers.
> >
> > I propose the following amendment to the plan:
> >
> > In the section "Other Participants in the OSC" on page 12, add:
> >
> > o 1 representative from any constituencies-in-formation formally
> > involved
> > in the process of applying for inclusion in one of the GNSO
> > Stakeholder
> > groups. The definition of the new constituency
> process should
> > include
> > the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status.
> >
> > While a version of this was in the penultimate version of
> the draft,
> > it was removed during the final discussion on the plan at a
> meeting I
> > could not attend.
> >
> > As the Planning team in effect rejected this language, I do not
> > believe it can accepted as a friendly amendment. I will therefore
> > make it as a motion for amendment to the plan. If it is
> seconded, we
> > will need to vote on the amendment before voting on the
> accepting the
> > plan itself.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the council
mailing list