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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri. Good points.  I am hoping there will be more discussion
like this and to encourage it even more, I second the motion for the
amendment.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:35 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on 
> the compositon of the OSC
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 08:22, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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;
> 
> I do not believe that we will have that many constituencies 
> that will qualify.  But this is assuming that we create a 
> reasonable set of criteria and a formal process for 
> introducing new constituencies.
> 
> > 2) it depends on a definition that we will not have until 
> after we act 
> > on the motion;
> 
> I think the plan needs to require that this definition be 
> developed, and I think the language I offered does this.  
> What I believe is important at this point is the principle of 
> openness and inclusion.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> But decisions on what to charter, and a determination of when 
> a charter is met or is problematic will be defined in the 
> OSC.  As we have seen in other cases, this activity can be 
> quite critical and quite problematic.  And to borrow from an 
> example given in another email, if the OSC were to charter a 
> group to look into making rules for SGs that prohibited the 
> participation of faith based constituencies, this could be 
> something where the existence of that charter could be 
> relevant to a group that had met all the existing pre- 
> conditions becoming a prospective constituency-in-formation.
> 
> Additionally, I think that having these end game candidate 
> constituencies in the OSC also allows for a better view of 
> their real seriousness and the level to which they are ready 
> to participate and can play well with others.  I.e. I believe 
> that those trying to determine whether to grant full 
> constituency status will gain insight from having candidates 
> participate as observers - though that is not my reason for 
> suggesting the amendment.
> 
> Of course I do not have a second for this yet, so it may be a 
> moot point.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>