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

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

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@xxxxxxx] 
> 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@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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>