RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>