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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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.
Hi, On 10 Oct 2008, at 10:27, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
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?
as observers, i do not believe they are part of consensus formation other then as participants in the debate. I believe the plan calls for full consensus of the members and is specific in differentiating between members and other participants. If this is not clear, which i think it is, then perhaps we need another amendment.
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?
wouldn't that be up to the committee itself in terms of determining their methods? a.
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@cov.com] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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.
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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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.
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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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.
Avri, re your concern about excluding constituencies in formation. I will shortly be applying for a new constituency on behalf of the "Members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (ref: http://www.venganza.org/ ) I regard any cynicism as to this not being a serious application as an affront to my religious faith. See Dawson, Richard " The God Delusion" for an explication of the theological arguments. I trust you will review this application as "serious" : ref' Doria, Avri " "I believe that once a serious group of organizers have declared themselves publicly.." ) Philip PS I trust you see my point concerning the problem with any judgement of "serious".
Hi, From a life time of discussion I have come to believe that while the ad absurdum argument is always amusing, is is rarely really pertinent as it almost always involves taking some aspect of the proposal out of context. In this case, you have picked on the word "serious" without including the rest of the context which attempts to indicate how seriousness is determined. As I said, if they have met all of the TBD ("The definition of the new constituency process should include the requirements that need to be met to achieve this status") conditions to be set for what it means to be a constituency-in-formation, such as they have a proposed charter indicating what their interest in ICANN policy on GTLD is, they have an active mailing list, they have members signed up, they have been holding meetings and have been publishing comments on policy work in progress, ... This is what I mean by serious. I have always defended the existence of constituencies and their ability to self define, even if other people felt that they were really duplicates of others or not serious in some other way. In a multi-stakeholder organization, the basic requirement is to allow the self formation and self definition of constituencies - as long as they meet objective pre-defined criteria of participation, openness, transparency, etc ... So, while I doubt the members of the CoFSM will find themselves with a concrete interest in policy making on GTLDs, i do believe that if they meet well defined and published objective criteria of what it means to be serious and were under active consideration for membership in a SG, then no, I would have no problem with them being included as observers. a. ps, yes i read the God Delusion. I thought it was an interesting piece of theology. I found it interesting that he really does not distinguish between the CoFSM and any other church. On 10 Oct 2008, at 09:52, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, re your concern about excluding constituencies in formation.
I will shortly be applying for a new constituency on behalf of the "Members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (ref: http://www.venganza.org/ )
I regard any cynicism as to this not being a serious application as an affront to my religious faith. See Dawson, Richard " The God Delusion" for an explication of the theological arguments.
I trust you will review this application as "serious" : ref' Doria, Avri " "I believe that once a serious group of organizers have declared themselves publicly.." )
Philip
PS I trust you see my point concerning the problem with any judgement of "serious".
As long as the group meets minimal, measurable criteria including evidence that there is support from a reasonable number of members from the community to be represented, they should be included. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 9:53 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
Avri, re your concern about excluding constituencies in formation.
I will shortly be applying for a new constituency on behalf of the "Members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (ref: http://www.venganza.org/ )
I regard any cynicism as to this not being a serious application as an affront to my religious faith. See Dawson, Richard " The God Delusion" for an explication of the theological arguments.
I trust you will review this application as "serious" : ref' Doria, Avri " "I believe that once a serious group of organizers have declared themselves publicly.." )
Philip
PS I trust you see my point concerning the problem with any judgement of "serious".
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
Rosette, Kristina