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

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

Submitting an application would not be sufficient.  They would need to
demonstrate some level of viability, yet to be determined.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:14 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on 
> the compositon of the OSC
> 
> Is a CIF created simply by submitting a request/application, 
> or is there other criteria? Also, the SC members, upon full 
> consensus, should be able to bar disruptive observers.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on 
> the compositon of the OSC
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, October 10, 2008 5:27 pm
> To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> If we went this direction, then pending constituencies could 
> participate without voting until such time that they were 
> approved as a constituency and then they could vote. That 
> doesn't sound bad to me.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:16 PM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: Re: [council] Re; Impovements plan - a comment on the 
> > compositon of the OSC
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 10 Oct 2008, at 12:02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> > > I am hoping there will be more discussion like this and to
> > encourage
> > > it even more, I second the motion for the amendment.
> > 
> > thanks.
> > 
> > > 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 have always assumed it was full consensus of members not 
> including 
> > other participants. for example wile the comments of staff 
> are always 
> > highly valued, I did not assume they were figuring into the 
> consensus 
> > decisions. they are list among other participants. Note: this is 
> > different then in the planing team where staff are members 
> of the team 
> > due to the nature of the Board's mandate to staff and council.
> > 
> > If necessary for clarity we could amend the two instances of:
> > 
> > Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> > * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, committee 
> > decisions will be made using a "full consensus" process.
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > Decision making for the [P,O]SC
> > * Unless otherwise determined by the [P,O]SC members, committee 
> > decisions will be made using a "full consensus of the members" 
> > process.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>