RE: [council] Proposed OSC Charter

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

Avri,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:36 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed OSC Charter
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Are there any material changes in the charter?  If so, I 
> think we would actually need a motion and a vote to approved 
> the modified charter.

CG: What's a material change?  I think there are both minor edits and
changes that are more substantial.  The charter is not very long so a
quick read should allow people to determine whether they think there are
any material changes and more importantly whether they have any
concerns.  It's your call on the need for a vote. Maybe we should ask
Staff their oppinion based on Board recommendations.  The idea suggested
in the OSC was that we should minimize the time the Council has to spend
on this and I think that is one of the underlying intents of forming the
steering committees in the first place.  The most critical thing for the
Council to formally approve will be the implementation plans that are
produced by the work teams and approved by the steering committees.

> 
> Also I see it does not include any milestones.  In any case, 
> I think it would be reasonable to hold off any such vote 
> until some milestones have been included.

CG: Because we decided to involve the work teams in development of the
milestones, delaying a vote until milestones have been included will
require some time.  For now, our most urgent tasks are to get the work
team charters in good enough draft shape so that they provide a good
overview of what the various team responsibilities will be and then to
form the work teams.  To accomplish those immediate goals, we need to at
least know that there are no significant objections to our proposed
charter.  As far as near term milestones, we are hoping to get the work
teams up and running in January.

> 
> I do not, however, think that giving 3 days for Council 
> members to object to any changes is necessarily sufficient 
> for substantively modifying a SC charter.

CG: Did you see anything in the draft charter that would need more time?

> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> Reference from approved plan for GNSO Improvements:
> 
> The GNSO Council must adopt the charter that initiates the 
> work of the steering committees. This should be done by a 
> motion for approval of a charter which is duly seconded and 
> which receives a supermajority vote of Council members 
> present. The Council also must approve any material changes 
> that are made to the work items or milestones or committee 
> composition.  All such work plans and committee composition 
> decisions, including termination of the steering committees, 
> will be done by a motion within the Council that is duly 
> seconded and which receives a supermajority vote in 
> compliance with the current GNSO Council voting guidelines ....
> 
> 
> On 12 Dec 2008, at 16:56, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > The current membership of the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) 
> > unanimously approved the attached charter for the OSC and is being 
> > sent to the Council for information.  If there are not objections by
> > 18 Dec 08, we will assume it is de facto adopted.
> >
> > Our next steps are to develop an invitation for members to 
> the three 
> > initial work teams described in the charter and to make 
> final edits to 
> > the draft charters for those work teams.  We hope to provide those 
> > items to the Council in the next couple weeks.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes, OSC Chair
> > <GNSO Improvements - Proposed OSC Charter - 12 Dec 08.doc>
> 
>