Page History

h2. *01 October Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
Apologies from Claudio DiGangi, Debra Hughes, and Michael Young.

*Staff:*
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team discussed the comments  from the OSC and WT members on the document sent to the OSC on 10  September. They address several concerns as follows.
*1) Need for a Committee:* With respect to the concern  about the need for a Committee and possible resulting bureaucracy, the  WT suggested that a larger Task Force could be created, in lieu of a  Committee, but with a smaller Steering Committee. The Task Force would  be large enough to allow for diversity of membership, but the inclusion  of a small Steering Committee could prevent the group from becoming  bureaucratic. (This also relates to a comment provided by Ron Andruff.)  In addition, the Steering Committee could include representatives from  Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies who are engaged in outreach  efforts in those groups, to avoid duplication of effort.
*2) Timing of the Committee:* The Work Team also  addressed the concern that the Task Force should be time-delimited but  suggesting that it should be established for an initial term of 2 years  followed by a review. If the review determines that the work of the Task  Force should continue, its charter could be renewed annually.
*3) Differences in Outreach Efforts/Principles:* In  addition, the Work Team suggested that to addresses concerns about  differences in outreach efforts among the various stakeholder groups and  constituencies, the Task Force should have some principles. These could  include that 1) outreach to potential participants to the Commercial  Stakeholder Groups is different from outreach to the Non-Commercial  Stakeholder Groups; 2) there are communities that are not  well-represented in the GNSO and outreach efforts should target these  communities; 3) outreach should originate from a variety of sources, not  just from stakeholder groups and constituencies.
*4) Accountability/Measurement:* With respect to concerns  about accountability mechanisms, the Work Team suggested that the first  objective of the Task Force would be to conduct a survey of existing  GNSO outreach activities by the stakeholder groups, constituencies, and  ICANN, including the Fellowship program. The Task Force could analyze  the effectiveness of existing efforts, such as whether they have  increased membership and participation, and whether fellows have  continued to be active in ICANN, and used these data to determine where  there are gaps in order to develop recommendations for additional  outreach activities. Concerning the issue of targeting outreach to  Registrar's and Registries (the language suggested by Michael), these  activities could be tied to the new gTLD process.
*5) Balancing Outreach Efforts:* Finally, concerning the  necessity for balance, while the Work Team agreed that universities are  under-represented in ICANN, it noted that there should be a balance with  outreach to businesses, non-governmental, and other entities. However,  the Work Team added that targeting outreach to universities could be an  effective way to bring in other new participants.
*ACTIONS: Olga agreed to edit the document and send it to Julie  to review and edit. Julie will send it to the Work Team for review and  Tony agreed to help with further edits. The Work Team will review the  document on the list and decide whether an additional meeting is  necessary on Friday, 08 October.*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Apologies from Chuck Gomes and Tony Harris.

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team discussed the 27 August  document with edits from Krista, Chuck, and Michael. They reviewed the  edits and inserted additional changes. Julie compiled a revised document  with tracked changes for the Work Team to review by Wednesday, 08  September. See [Global Outreach Program Recommendations Final Draft|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100903195933-0-4492/original/OSC%20Constituency%20%26%20Stakeholder%20Group%20Global%20Outreach%20Program%20Recommendations%20Final%20Draft%2003%20Sept%202010.pdf] . Julie will incorporate any changes sent to the list in a final  document to be sent to the OSC to consider by Friday, 10 September.

h2. *27 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-csg-27aug10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20100827.mp3]*).*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG

Apologies from Chuck Gomes, Krista Papac, Tony Harris, and Michael Young.

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team discussed the 23 August  document with edits from Krista, Chuck, and Michael. They reviewed and  accepted edits through Section 2.1.2.1. They also inserted additional  changes. Julie compiled a revised document with tracked changes for the  Work Team to review for the 03 September meeting. See [27 August Revised Task 2 Working Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100827201954-0-31742/original/OSC%20COT%20Task%202%20Working%20Document%2027%20August.pdf] . Olga agreed to alert Philip that the Work Team will need more time to review the document.

h2. *20 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-20aug10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100820.mp3]*).*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Apologies from Krista Papac and Tony Harris.

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team agreed to have Julie  clean up the draft document, incorporate any final changes from the  Sub-Team, and then send the document to the full Work Team to review for  discussion at the meeting on 27 August. See [Draft Task 2 Recommendations 23 August 2010|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100823205616-0-32178/original/OSC%20COT%20Task%202%20Working%20Document%2023%20Aug%202010.pdf] .

h2. *13 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-13aug10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100813.mp3]*.*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

Apologies from Krista Papac and Debbie Hughes.

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team discussed the edits  provided by Rafik. Work Team members emphasized that it is important for  outreach efforts to be coordinated with the activities of ICANN's  Communications Team and noted that the document should include specific  language emphasizing the need for this coordination. Julie agreed to  edit the document based on the Work Team's discussion and to circulate a  draft for further review and input. *ACTION: Sub Team members should review the* [Revised Task 2 Working Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100813221500-0-25734/original/OSC%20COT%20Task%202%20Working%20Document%2013%20Aug%202010.pdf] *and provide comments via the tracking function to Julie not later than  Noon EDT/1600 UTC on Thursday, 19 August so that she may incorporate  them and provide a revised document for discussion at the meeting on  Friday, 20 August.*

h2. *06 August Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-06aug10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100806.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP

Apologies from Krista Papac and Michael Young.

*Staff:*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 1* At its meeting on 05 August the GNSO Council  approved a motion to approve the Work Team's report of Task 1  recommendations. The Constituency and Stakeholder Group Procedures have  been included as a new Chapter 7 in the GNSO Council's Operational  Procedures and will be submitted as a separate document to  Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team discussed the need to  have greater detail in the document with specific examples. Rafik noted  that it would be helpful to highlight the specific sections that require  additional input. Julie agreed to highlight the section and distribute  the revised sections. See [Revised Task 2 Working Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100806160606-0-24745/original/OSC%20COT%20Task%202%20Working%20Document%2006%20Aug%202010.pdf] . *Action: Work Team members should provide comments to Julie not later than 1200 Noon EDT on Thursday, 12 August.*

h2. *23 July Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-23jul10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100723.mp3]*.*)

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group
Apologies from Tony Harris, ISPCP, Victoria McEvedy IPC, and Krista Papac, Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 1* There was only one public comment and it was not  substantive or related to the Work Team's report. The Work Team  discussed a motion for Olga to submit to the Council. Rafik agreed to  second the motion. Olga asked Julie to send a revised version of the  motion to the list (DONE 23 July)

*Task 2 Outreach* The Work Team members discussed the  structure, representation, and mission of the proposed Outreach  Committee. Michael noted that the mission of the Committee is to examine  and audit all outreach activities to look for overlapping efforts to  achieve better results and factor in complimentary efforts. The  Committee should focus on cost efficiencies and effectiveness, specific  programs \-\- such as an annual workshop, and should work on a funding  model with ICANN. The Work Team discussed whether the outreach  recommendations should pertain to all of ICANN or to just the GNSO.  Julie noted that the BGC recommendations pertained only to GNSO outreach  efforts, but that coordination with other ICANN outreach activities  would be important and a useful goal. The Work Team discussed changes to  the draft document from Olga and Debbie on representation, structure,  and membership. *ACTIONS: Julie agreed to consolidate all of the comments into one clean document and to circulate it on 26 July. DONE: See* [OSC COT Task 2 Working Document 26 July 2010|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100726200416-0-7803/original/OSC%20COT%20Task%202%20Working%20Document%2026%20July%202010.pdf] *. The Work Team members agreed to provide comments to Julie no later  than noon on Thursday, 29 July. Julie will incorporate the comments into  a document for discussion at a two-hour meeting on Friday, 30 July.*

h2. *16 July Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-16jul10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20100716.mp3]*.*)

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group
Apologies from: Olga Cavalli, NCA, and Tony Harris, ISPCP

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 1* \-\- The Work Team's recommendations are posted  for public comment ending 18 July. Julie will analyze and summarize the  comments and present them to the Work Team to consider.

*Task 2 Outreach \-\- Actions: Carried Over from 09 July. DEADLINE  FOR INPUT: THURSDAY, 22 JULY, DEADLINE FOR FINAL DOCUMENT 15 AUGUST TO  OSC*
*Background: ACTIONS:* Debbie agreed to provide some edits with assistance from Julie.
*General Document Changes: ACTIONS:* The Work Team agreed  to add more examples to the document and say why these programs or  activities are useful examples. In addition, goals should be added to  each activity. Tony noted that activities should be regionalized as much  as possible, particularly to include regional events.
*Section 2.1 Recommendations for a global outreach strategy: ACTIONS:* Olga, Rafik, and Tony agreed to further explore more detailed  recommendations via email prior to the next Work Team call on 23 July.  Debbie and Michael agreed to provide examples of outreach programs.
*2.1.1 Identifying Potential Members and Target Populations: ACTIONS:* The Work Team will include information on universities and Rob and Julie will assist in coordinating with ICANN organizations.
*2.1.2 Financial Resources for the Implementation of Global Outreach Strategy: ACTIONS:* Olga and Julie agreed to work together with Julie assisting in identifying resources within ICANN. Debbie also offered to help.

h2. *09 July Meeting Notes/Action Items: See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-09jul10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100709.mp3]

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
Apologies from: Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Rob Hoggarth
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 2 Outreach \-\- Summary and Actions:*
The Work Team discussed the various sections of the [OSC COT Task 2 - Working Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100709152250-0-22668/original/OSC%20COT%20Task%202%20-%20Working%20document%2006%2020%202010.pdf] provided by Debbie Hughes. In particular, the Work Team discussed the  additional work and information needed to complete the following  sections of the document:
*Background:* Debbie suggested that this section could be  edited to focus just on the background specific to the task and  deleting the information concerning Work Team discussions. *ACTIONS:* Debbie agreed to provide some edits with assistance from Julie.
*General Document Changes:* *ACTIONS:* The  Work Team agreed to add more examples to the document and say why these  programs or activities are useful examples. In addition, goals should  be added to each activity. Tony noted that activities should be  regionalized as much as possible, particularly to include regional  events.
*Section 2.1 Recommendations for a global outreach strategy:* Olga, Tony, and Rafik had agreed at the meeting on 20 June to form a  sub team to discuss the composition, goals, and objectives of a Global  Outreach Strategy Committee. *ACTIONS:* Olga had sent  some ideas to the sub team and the sub team agreed to further explore  more detailed recommendations via email prior to the next Work Team call  on 16 July. Debbie and Michael agreed to provide examples of outreach  programs.
*2.1.1 Identifying Potential Members and Target Populations:* The Work Team discussed the need to include more information on  relationships with universities. In particular, Tony suggested that the  Work Team could identify 2-3 universities per region. Olga emphasized  that it is important to partner with universities, to identify  professors as contacts, and students to mentor. In addition, Rob and  Julie agreed to assist in notifying other ICANN organizations (ALAC,  Board Participation Committee) that the Work Team is developing outreach  recommendations and that these organizations may be contacted to  provide information on their outreach efforts. *ACTIONS:* The Work Team will include information on universities and Rob and Julie will assist in coordinating with ICANN organizations.
*2.1.2 Financial Resources for the Implementation of Global Outreach Strategy:* Debbie suggested that a sub team could be formed to work on this section. *ACTIONS:* Olga and Julie agreed to work together with Julie assisting in identifying resources within ICANN. Debbie also offered to help.
*Deadline: the Work Team agreed to meet weekly and set a goal of  finalizing the document by mid-August, but to provide a firm deadline of  30 August to Philip Sheppard for the OSC.*

h2. *20 June Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See:* [Audiocast Archive|http://audio.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/gnso-osc-ops-wt-20jun20-en.mp3]*,* [Chat Transcript|http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/transcript-chat-osc-constituency-ops-20jun10-en.pdf] *and* [Previous meeting Notes|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Krista Papac - Registrar Stakeholder Group
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Liz Gasster
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund

*Task 1:* The final report was sent to the OSC for  consideration. The OSC voted to approve the report and send it to the  GNSO Council with minor revisions on 19 June. The GNSO Council approved a  motion to put the report out for a 21-day public comment period at its  meeting Brussels on 23 June. See: [GNSO 23 June Motions|https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?23_june_motions] and [CSG Task 1 Recommendations Final Report|http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.pdf]



*Task 2:* The Work Team agreed to meet weekly beginning  on Friday, 09 July to discuss outreach recommendations. Debbie noted  that there are two questions to be addressed: 1) what is our outreach  strategy? and 2) what are the specific documents and programs to  recommend? With respect to 2.1 Global Outreach Strategy, the Work Team  agreed that this was a good idea to recommend the formation of an  outreach committee although they noted that it should not duplicate the  work of other groups in the ICANN. In this regard the Work Team  suggested that there should be a survey of ICANN's current outreach  activities. Michael noted that the Work Team should include in its  recommendations an initial task for the outreach committee. An example  could be for the committee to develop outreach multiple-day workshops  and Olga noted that orientation to ICANN could be a primary goal of  these workshops. Debbie suggested the following committee tasks: 1)  coordinate the various outreach efforts in ICANN; 2) focus point for  receiving ideas for outreach; 3) orientation for new ICANN participants.  Debbie asked how the committee should be structured. ACTION: Look at  the ALAC model: A outreach committee charter drafting team was  established with Tony, Olga, and Rafik. On Section 2.1.2 on resources,  the Work Team recommended working with ICANN staff to know what exists,  particularly what staff support exists. The Work Team also recommended  looking at global outreach programs. With respect to Section 2.2 Global  Outreach Programs, these could include workshops/training \-\- including  engagement at universities. ACTION: Michael will work with Olga to  suggest ideas for programs, coordinate with ICANN staff, budget process  and priorities, global partnerships.

*Next Steps: 1. Debbie to produce a revised draft document; 2.  Establish an outreach committee charter drafting team: Tony, Olga, and  Rafik; 3. Michael and Debbie to develop suggestions for outreach  programs.*

h2. *28 May Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund

*Apologies:*
Zahid Jamil -- CBUC
SS Kshatriya -- Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Notes/Action Items:*
*Task 1:* The Work Team agreed on some  corrections/additions to the Task 1 recommendations. Specifically, Debra  Hughes was added to the list of Work Team members supporting the  majority recommendations and a list of Work Team members with  designations as to whether they were subtask leaders was added as  Appendix B. The list included an indication of which members were  inactive. In addition, the Work Team added the word "Recommended" to the  beginning of the title, added a reference to Appendix A at the  beginning of Section 2, and accepted all of the changes suggested by  Victoria. *Action: Julie will revise the document and Olga will  send it to the Work Team members who have until Monday, 31 May, to  provide any final comments. Olga will send the document to the OSC on  Monday.* See [Common  Operating Principles Participation Guidelines GNSO SGs Constituencies  Recommendations re GNSO Database of Members FINAL TO OSC 28 May|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100528181747-0-32344/original/Common%20Operating%20Principles%20Participation%20Guidelines%20GNSO%20SGs%20Constituencies%20%20Recommendations%20re%20GNSO%20Database%20of%20Members%20FINAL%20TO%20OSC%2028%20May.pdf] .

*Task 2:* The Work Team agreed to use the regularly  scheduled Friday calls to meet to discuss Task 2. Debbie noted that  there were two areas of focus: outreach to current constituency members  and outreach to potential constituency members. Michael offered to work  on specific objectives for the proposed ICANN Committee for Outreach. In  particular, Michael thought that the Committee could develop a Workshop  in coordination with the ISOC to be held in developing countries. The  materials for the workshop could include an "ICANN for Dummies" guide  along with other materials. He added that outreach efforts could include  NGOs and business development organizations. Tony suggested adding  knowledge management, Internet governance, and chambers of commerce.  Olga offered to help with Latin America, particularly for Internet  governance and universities. Rafik agreed to help and suggested working  with ICANN's Global Partnerships. Debbie agreed to coordinate with other  groups within ICANN to determine how best to establish the Outreach  Committee. *Action: Prior to the next meeting on Friday, 11 June,  Task 2 sub team members should provide input to Michael via the list on  the workshop, outreach areas, and any other suggestions. Sub team  members also should send any ideas on the Committee concept to Debbie.*

h2. *14 May Meeting Notes/Action Items (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-14may10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100514.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Claudio Digangi -- IPC
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Rob Hoggarth

*Apologies:*
Zahid Jamil -- CBUC
SS Kshatriya -- Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Action Items:*
*Task 1:* A new version including changes suggested by  Claudio and the minority report sent by Victoria and SS will be sent to  the list. WT members should make a last revision of the whole document  by next Friday. It will then be submitted to the OSC for its  consideration. Please if there are other minority reports to be included  send them to our list ASAP. Here is the [Revised Recommendations Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100520163919-0-31191/original/Common%20Operating%20Principles%20%26%20Participation%20Guidelines%20GNSO%20SGs%20%26%20Constituencies%20%26%20Recommendations%20re%20GNSO%20Database%20of%20Members%2020%20May.pdf]



*Task 2:* Debbie will propose some next steps in relation  with possible useful contacts and other WT may join her in this effort.  She will also circulate into our list a new version of the document.  Many WT members will send more detailed information related with  outreach, to be included in the document.

*Next conference call:* Please note that we agreed not to  have a confeence call next Friday. So our next meeting will take place  on Friday 28 May, 13 UTS.

h2. *07 May Meeting Notes/Action Items*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Claudio Digangi -- IPC
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Julie Hedlund
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Rob Hoggarth

*Apologies:*
Zahid Jamil -- CBUC
SS Kshatriya -- Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Action Items:*
*Task 1:* Actions: 1) Olga asked Julie to make the changes and to circulate the revised document (Done, See [Revised Task 1 Recommendations 07 May|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100507180004-0-856/original/OSC%20Constituency%20Stakeholder%20Group%20work%20Team%20Task%201%20Recommendations%20Rev%2007%20May%202010.pdf] ; and 2) Work Team members are requested to review the document and to  provide any final comments and minority reports, if any, by Friday, 14  May.
*Task 2:* Debbie will revise the framework document based  on comments received from Work Team members and circulate the revised  document for review.

*Discussion:*
*Task 1:* The Work Team discussed the changes requested  from the 30 April meeting and additional changes suggested by Claudio.  They agreed on all of the changes. In addition, the Work Team discussed  the comments provided by Chuck Gomes in Section 2.3.2. With respect to  Paragraph c, Chuck asked whether the term "inactive" needed to be  defined (as in "inactive member"). Rafik suggested that whether to  define an inactive member would depend on the Constituency or  Stakeholder Group. Claudio suggested the following wording be appended  to paragraph c after the word "inactive" preceded by a comma: "as  provided for in the Group's Charter." The Work Team members agreed. With  respect to paragraph d, Chuck asked for clarification on the meaning of  the sentence "The Operator should perform the updates to those holding  an Executive Position in an ICANN community." The Work Team members  agreed that it did not make sense and could be stricken.
*Task 2:* Scott Pinzon, Director, Policy  Communications/Information Services, joined the call and provided an  overview of some outreach activities at ICANN, including 1) Barbara  Clay, Vice President of Communications, has recently joined ICANN with a  mandate to promote outreach activities; 2) Enhancing the GNSO website:  Work is proceeding from recommendations approved by the GNSO Council by  the OSC Communications and Coordination Work Team, including a sectino  for newcomers that includes videos on various issues; 3) ICANN as a  certifying body: ICANN will provide continuing professional education  credits for Information Security Systems Professionals; 4) the ICANN  Policy Team is supporting outreach efforts through webinars for  newcomers, updates on policy issues, orientation materials, and podcasts  \-\- all on the e-learning page accessible from the ICANN main page. Olga  and Rafik emphasized that although these are good efforts there needs  to be more focus on outreach to developing countriess and non-commercial  organizations. Scott noted that it would be helpful for the Work Team  to develop recommendations encouraging translations. Rob noted that an  important element would be clarity on the roles and expectations for  ICANN staff, Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, and other volunteers.  Debbie asked if there was any specific guidance from the OSC on outreach  activities and Julie responded that the guidance is contained the the  BGC WG's report and it is fairly broad. Rob added that the Work Team had  an opportunity to define outreach goals and activities. Claudio noted  that the website participation page should consolidate elements on one  page.

h2. *30 April Meeting Notes/Action Items*

*Attendees:*
• Claudio Digangi -- IPC
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Julie Hedlund
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Glen de Saint-Gery

*Apologies:*
Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
Zahid Jamil -- CBUC
SS Kshatriya -- Individual
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Discussion/Action Items:*
*Task 1:* Work Team members agreed with the minor textual  changes made by Julie Hedlund to clarify the organization of the  recommendations. They also asked Julie to insert a reference to the BGC  WG Report to clarify the origin of the specific recommendations to  address any question concerning the difference between the use of  "principles" versus "operating procedures" in the text. In addition, the  Work Team members agreed to change the word "shall" to "should"  throughout the recommendations, but to insert a definition prior to the  recommendations section that "should" means "mandatory" unless otherwise  specified. Finally, the Work Team members decided to delete Appendix A  "Detailed Analysis of Group Operating Principles" since many of the  recommendations in this section are inconsistent with those agreed to in  the recommendations contained in the main body of the document. The  Work Team noted that in the absence of a lengthy discussion of the  recommendations in the "Detailed Analysis" section to make them  consistent with the recommendations in the body of the document the  section should be deleted. However, the Work Team noted that Work Team  members could include any of these details, if desired, in a Minority  Report that would be attached as an Appendix to the document. During the  meeting Claudio noted that there were remaining comments from Chuck and  Rafik that had not been discussed. Julie said they had all been  discussed, but noticed after the call that she was in error. There are a  couple of comments from Chuck in Section 2.3 that need to be discussed  as follows: 1) 2.3.2 Storing and Updating Membership Records, paragraph c  \-\- need a definition of an "inactive member"; and 2) 2.3.2 paragraph d  \-\- What is the meaning of the sentence, "The Operator should perform the  updates to those holding an executive position in an ICANN Community." *ACTIONS: Julie will make the requested changes as redlines \-\- DONE: See "Task 1 Recommendations Revised 30 April"* *OSC Constituency Stakeholder Group Work Team Task 1 Recommendations Rev 30 April 2010.pdf* *; 2) Work Team members are requested to review the revised document and  provide comments and/or minority reports no later than 14 May.*
*Task 2:* The Work Team began a discussion of comments  received from Olga, Chuck, and Rafik on the framework document. Michael  asked whether the BGC WG Report provided details concerning outreach and  Julie agreed to review the document. She also suggested that Chuck and  the OSC could provide guidance. Michael added that it would be useful,  for example, for the Work Team to recommend the development of a guide  to ICANN for those unfamiliar with the organization. Julie noted that  the Policy Update document as revised by Scott Pinzon had been designed  to be understood by someone not familiar with ICANN and GNSO Policy and  she suggested that it could be helpful for Scott to join for a Work Team  call to discuss current and planned activities that could assist with  outreach efforts. *ACTIONS: 1) Julie will invite Scott to the  call on 7 May (DONE \-\- he has agreed to join at half past the hour); 2)  Michael will send an email to the list with his ideas on specific  outreach tools; 3) Julie will review the BGC WG Report for guidance on  outreach activities.*

h2. *23 April Meeting Notes/Action Items (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-osc-23apr10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100423.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG
• Claudio Digangi -- IPC
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Michael Young - Registries Stakeholder Group

*Staff:*
• Julie Hedlund
• Gisella Gruber-White

*Apologies:*
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
SS Kshatriya -- Individual
Zahid Jamil -- CBUC
Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Discussion/Action Items:*
*Task 1:* The WT members discussed the consolidated  document and agreed that the format was good. However, they noted, as  Chuck had suggested, that it would be helpful to have introductory  paragraphs of a sentence or two prior to each new section of  recommendations. Julie also suggested it would be helpful to have a  introduction with an explanation of the arrangement of the  recommendations at the beginning of Section 2 Recommendations. In  addition, the WT members discussed whether the words "shall" should be  changed to "should" for ease of readability. However, some members noted  that the meanings of the two words are not interchangeable. In  particular, "shall" indicates an imperative, but "should" does not.  Thus, if "shall" is changed to "should" some readers could perceive this  to suggest that the recommendations in the document are optional, not  required. However, WT members noted that there may be some instances  when it is not preferable to make a recommendation a requirement and in  these instances it might be better to use the word "should." The WT  members agreed to change all instances of "should" to "shall" to help  determine whether this terminology was appropriate in all cases. *ACTIONS:  1) The WT members asked Julie to accept the edits made by Chuck, then  to show as tracked changes the additional edits, including the  introductory paragraphs and changes to terminology.* See [Task 1 Recommendations Rev 23 April|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100423174521-0-14011/original/OSC%20Constituency%20%20Stakeholder%20Group%20Work%20Team%20Task%201%20Recommendations%20Rev%2023%20April%202010.pdf] ; 2) Work Team members are requested to review the revised document and  suggest any final changes and provide minority reports, if any, no  later than 14 May.\*
*Task 2:* The WT members agreed that the document provided by Debbie Hughes provided a good framework for the discussion. (See [Task 2 Framework with Edits by OC|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100423174708-0-14507/original/Task%202%20general%20notes%20%2B%20oc.pdf] .) They also agreed that when the sub team develops its recommendations  it should follow the format as in the Task 1 consolidated document. The  WT agreed that it was not necessary to schedule a separate call of the  sub team members at this time, but that sub team members should provide  their comments on the framework document to Debbie for discussion at the  next meeting on 30 April. *ACTION: WT and sub team members  should review the framework document and provide their comments to  Debbie. Julie will circulate a document with all comments prior to the  meeting on 30 April.*

h2. *16 April Meeting Notes/Action Items (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-16apr10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100416.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli -- NCA -- Work Team Chair
• Claudio Digangi -- IPC
• Chuck Gomes -- Registries Stakeholder Group
• Tony Harris -- ISPCP
• Debra Hughes -- NCSG
• Rafik Dammak -- NCSG

*Staff:*
• Julie Hedlund
• Glen de Saint Géry

*Apologies:*
Victoria McEvedy - IPC
SS Kshatriya -- Individual
Zahid Jamil -- CBUC
Krista Papac -- Registrar Stakeholder Group

*Discussion/Action Items:*
*1. Organization and Formatting of Task 1 Recommendations:* The WT members discussed the organization of the Task 1 recommendations  (subtasks 1-3) into one document. Olga suggested that the  recommendations should be put together in one section and duplicates  (such as those in Subtask 2 Part IV Analysis) should be reconciled with  the recommendations in Subtask 2 Part II. Rafik noted that it was  important to include the analysis and background and Chuck suggested  that these could be summarized in an executive summary with the details  retained as an appendix or annex. The WT members on the call agreed to  the following organization 1. Executive Summary with background 2.  Recommendations 3. Summary of Minority Reports 4. Annexes/appendices  with detailed analysis and including the text from Subtask 2 Section IV  Subsection 3.12 Dealings with Staff: A Code of Practice. Olga asked  Julie Hedlund to produce a combined document.
*2. Task 1, Subtask 2, Part II, Section 1 Term Limits:* There was extensive discussion on term limits. Claudio noted that the  latest version did not include previous language he had suggested. Rafik  noted his concern that term limits should be applied to both  Stakeholder Group and Constituency Executive Committees. The WT members  on the call agreed to address the concerns by separating the term limits  into three sections applying to 1) councilors; 2) officers; 3)  executive committee members. The WT members asked Julie to provide  revised language to be included in the combined set of recommendations.

h2. *09 April Meeting Notes/Action Items (See* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100409.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Discussion/Action Items:*
*1. Deadlines:* Olga noted that the deadline for  submitting the WT's recommendations for Task 1, Subtasks 1-3 to the OSC  is 01 June. She asked Julie to compile the Subtask recommendations into  one document once they all are approved.
*2. Task 1, Subtask 2:* The WT members discussed language  for term limits and agreed to an option suggested by Chuck and modified  by Tony that would apply term limits to GROUP Councilors and Officers,  and to Stakeholder Group Executive Committee members. Olga asked Julie  to draft language for a new section on Term Limits for the WT to review.  With respect to Section II, Subsection 8 Policy, Olga asked Julie to  include the language suggested by Mary Wong for the WT to review. On  Annex B, Tony suggested deleting the section and the WT members on the  call agreed, noting that there was agreement among WT members at the  meeting in Seoul, South Korea also to delete Annex B. Olga asked Julie  to produce a Word document of Task 1, Subtask 2 including the changes  agreed to thus far and indicating additions and deletions using tracked  changes. *ACTION: WT members should review* [Revised Task 1, Subtask 2 Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100409204437-0-9264/original/Task%201%20Subtask%202%20Recommendations%20with%20Tracked%20Changes%2009%20April%202010.pdf] *and recommend any further changes. In particular, WT members should  note the following 1) new Part II, Section 1 Term Limits; 2) Mary Wong’s  proposed language for Section 9c (previously 8c) Policy, and 3) Section  10 GNSO Working Group through to the end of the document.*
*3. Task 1, Subtask 3:* Olga noted that no WT members had  suggested changes to Subtask 3. Julie suggested resending the document  to the WT to confirm that there are no changes and that the text is  approved. *ACTION: Work Team members should review* [Task 1, Subtask 3 Document|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20100409204529-0-8956/original/Subtask%201.3%20280310.pdf] *and either recommend any further changes or indicate that they agree to the text.*
*4. Task 2:* *ACTION: Debra Hughes is preparing preliminary thoughts.*

h2. *26 March Meeting Notes/Action Items (See* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100326.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Action Items*:
*1. Task 1, Subtask 2:*
*CHANGES THROUGH SECTION 8 (DISCUSSED THUS FAR):*
\-\-*Work Team members should review all changes through Section 8.  Policy and provide comments to the list not later than Friday, 01  April. It will be assumed that all changes are agreed to if no comments  are received.*
\-\-*Rafik Dammak* agreed to ask Mary Wong if she had  suggestions for alternative language for Section 8. Policy, paragraph b.  "Committee meetings should be open for attendance by all Constituency {GROUP} members \--\- and at the election of the Constituency \-\- to the  public."\*
\-\-*Krista Papac* agreed to review Claudio DiGangi's  suggested language to Section 4. Voting as it also could be applied to  Section 1. Executive Commitees to maintain consistency.
*\--REMAINING SECTIONS:* Work Team members should review  the remainings sections of Task 1, Subtask 2: Section 9. GNSO WG; 10.  Reference to Code of Practice at Annex B (and Annex B text); 11.  Reference to Handbook on Common Rules and Principles; and 12. Reference  to recommendations applying to Contracted House Stakeholder Groups. Work  Team members should send comments to the list.
*2. Task 1, Subtask 3:* Julie will load the latest  version from Krista on the wiki. Work Team members are requested to  review the document in preparation for the meeting on Friday, 09 April.
*3. Task 2: Outreach:* Debbie Hughes will provide some  ideas to begin the discussion on the Sub Team. The subteam members are:  Debbie (leader), Olga Cavalli, Rafik Dammak, Claudio DiGangi, Chuck  Gomes, and Michael Young.

*Summary:*
Olga noted that Philip Sheppard, the new Chair of the Operations  Steering Committee, has requested that the Work Team complete its work  by 01 June in preparation for the ICANN meeting in Brussels. Olga  explained to Philip that the Work Team might not be able to complete  Task 2, but would complete the remaining subtasks of Task 1. She  recommended that the Work Team should finish Task 1, Subtask 2 by the  next meeting and begin a review of Task 1, Subtask 3, and asked Krista  to send the latest version for Julie to load on the wiki. The Work Team  discussed additional changes to Section 1. Elections and Section 4.  Voting. Claudio provided revised language to the list for consideration.  Krista agreed to review Section 1. Elections in view of Claudio's  revised language. The Work Team agreed to retain the previous changes in  Section 5. Voting. Rafik agreed to ask Mary Wong if she had suggestions  for alternative language for Section 8. Policy, paragraph b. "Committee  meetings should be open for attendance by all Constituency {GROUP} members \--\- and at the election of the Constituency \-\- to the public." On  Task 2, Olga asked for volunteers for a Task Sub Team. Debbie Hughes  agreed to be the leader of the Sub Team and the other volunteers were:  Olga Cavalli, Rafik Dammak, Claudio DiGangi, Chuck Gomes, and Michael  Young.

h2. \*\*


h2. *07 March Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/transcript-constituency-ops-07mar10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/meetings/nairobi2010/gnso-council-working-session-2-07mar10-en.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service Providers Constituency (OSC member)
• Stéphane Van Gelder - Registrar Stakeholder Group (OSC member)
• Jaime Wagner - Internet Service and Connection Providers (GNSO Council member)
• Mary Wong - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (OSC member)

*Staff:*
• Liz Gasster, Senior Legal Counsel
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Action Items*:
1. *Work Team members* are requested to review the [Revised Language in Task 1, Subtask 2|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2] through the end of Part II, Section 8 and provide any comments by the next meeting on *Friday 26 March*.
2. *Section 4 Elections Paragraph a:* *Krista Papac* agreed to suggest alternate language.
3. *Section 5 Voting:*
\-\-*Paragraph a and b: Mary Wong and Zahid Jamil* will review the revised language.
\-\-*New paragraph d: Work Team members* are requested to consider and comment on the language.
4. *Section 8 Policy:*
\-\-*Paragraph a: Victoria McEvedy* to provide clarification on the meaning of the statement.
\-\-*Paragraph d: Mary Wong* to provide alternate language for Work Team consideration.

*Summary:*
*Task 1, Subtask 1:* Work Team members agreed to the final version of the revised recommendations.
*Task 1, Subtask 2:* Work Team members reviewed and discussed changes through Part II, Section 8 Policy.

h2. *19 February Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-19feb10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20100219.mp3]*)*

*Attendees:*
• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency

*Staff:*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Actions/Summary:*
*Task 1, Subtask 1:* Work Team members agreed to revised  language presented by Rafik on Section 2, paragraph f and by Claudio on  Section 3, paragraph 2. *ACTION: Work Team members are requested to review the* [Revised Language in Task 1, Subtask 1|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1] *as indicated in all caps and strikeout by Friday, 26 February. If no  comments are received by that date the recommendations will be  considered accepted by the Work Team.*
*Task 1, Subtask 2:* Work Team members reviewed and discussed changes through Part II, Section 3 Communications. *ACTION: Work Team members are requested to review the* [Revised Language in Task 1, Subtask 2|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2] *through the end of Section 3 and provide any comments by Friday, 26 February.*

h2. *12 February Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-12feb10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20100212.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees*

• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*
• Glen de Saint-Gery
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Actions/Summary:*
*Task 1, Subtask 1:* There was discussion on Section 2,  paragraph f. Work Team members suggested new language based on changes  suggested by Rafik, with some modifications. In addition, Claudio  suggested alternate language for Section 3, paragraph 2 during the  meeting.
\-\-*Work Team members are requested to comment on the list on the following suggested changes:*
*Section 2, para. f:* "IN CASE OF UNFAIR TREATMENT  RESULTING IN THE REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION OR A DISPUTE, THE APPLICANT  MAY LODGE A COMPLAINT WITH THE ICANN OMBUDSMAN {OR A MUTUALLY AGREED  UPON NON-BIASED NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY}. THE PROCESS FOR LODGING A  COMPLAINT WITH THE OMBUDSMAN IS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE V OF THE ICANN  BYLAWS AND IN THE OMBUDSMAN FRAMEWORK, AVAILABLE AT [http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/ombudsman-framework-26mar09-en.pdf|http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/ombudsman-framework-26mar09-en.pdf]".
*Section 3, para. 2:* "{TO IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY,  TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY, ALL GROUPS SHOULD ESTABLISH AND  PUBLISH A CONSENSUS BUILDING MODEL OR PROCESS IN THEIR BYLAWS OR  CHARTER. THE PROCESS OR MODEL SHOULD BE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF  PARTICIPATION, REPRESENTATIVENESS, PROCESS INTEGRITY, FLEXIBILITY,  TRANSPARENCY, OPENNESS, AND OTHER NORMS COMMON TO THE GNSO WG MODEL}.  t{T}he use of voting {WITHIN POLICY DELIBERATIONS} should be minimized  as much as possible." 7

*Task 1, Subtask 2:* The Work Team discussed Subtask 2 through Part II, Section 4 Elections.
\-\-*Work Team members: \*review the changes (in ALL CAPS and curly brackets {}) on the* [Wiki Page|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2]*.*
\--Section 1.5 Process Issues: *Discuss further with Victoria on 19 February.*
\-\-*Claudio:* Review Section 2 Committees, paragraphs c and d.
\--Section 3 Communications, para. b: (1) *Michael:* check the Registries Stakeholder Group Charter; (2) *Julie:* check the BGC recommendations, and also with respect to paragraphs c-f re: Constituency Disclosure Policy.
\--Section 4 Elections, para. b: *Claudio:* review the language.

h2. *05 February Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-05feb10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100205.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy -- Intellectual Property Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Actions/Summary:*

The Work Team agreed to meet at the same time next Friday \-\- 1300 UTC \-\-  as this accommodates the majority of Work Team members, while realizing  that it is a less convenient time for Chuck and Krista.

*Task 1, Subtask 1*
1. Work Team members are requested to review the text of [Task 1, Subtask 1|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1] and provide final comments by Friday, 12 February.
2. Claudio and other Work Team members will suggest alternate language  for Section 3 Policy and Consensus, Second Paragraph and will post  suggestions and comments to the email list.
3. Rafik will provide comments on Section 2f (language suggested by ICANN Legal staff).

*Task 1, Subtask 2*
1. Victoria and Work Team members are requested to review suggested changes to [Task 1, Subtask 2|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2] Part 1, and Part 2, through Section 2 Committees.
2. Work Team members request clarification from Victoria on the meaning of Section 1.5 Process Issues.
3. Work Team members asked Julie to confirm the citation for the quote  "unacceptably high information costs" in Section 1.2 Improvements. Julie  confirmed that the quote, as noted in Victoria's original document, is  from the LSE Report on page 9.
4. Work Team members asked Julie to confirm the link to the "best and  worst practices" document in Section 1.4 Methods. Julie corrected the  link and notes that the reference is to the "Revised Constituency  Analysis" document.

h2. *29 January Meeting Notes/Action Items: (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-29jan10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20100129.mp3]*.)*

*Attendees*

• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy -- Intellectual Property Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

*Actions/Summary:*

1. Julie Hedlund will circulate language from Task 1, Subtask 1, Section  2f to ICANN legal staff for review and suggested approaches.

2. Work Team members completed the discussion of Task 1, Subtask 1.  Julie Hedlund incorporated changes in the wiki document (reflected in  ALL CAPS and strikeout) at: [Task 1, Subtask 1|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1]



3. The Work Team agreed to meet weekly for the next four weeks beginning  at 1300 UTC for 90 minutes. The next meeting will begin with a  discussion of Task 1, Subtask 2.

h2. *15 January Meeting Notes/Action Items:* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-15jan10-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20100115.mp3]

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy -- Intellectual Property Constituency

*Staff*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

1. Section 1, paragraph b: Victoria, Krista and Olga will elaborate a  text based on our discussion and will propose it to the group.

2. Section 2, paragraph d1: Victoria and Claudio will elaborate a text based on our discussion and will propose it to the group.

3. All changes made to the text will be incorporated to the wiki, Julie will circulate the link to the working team.

4. For those not present in the call, please review the new version of the text and made comments as soon as possible.

5. The following text still needs to be reviewd by the whole working  team, I suggest that we exchange comments and suggested edits to this  part, which is the only text left to finish Subtask 1.1 draft document  revision:

Section 2j. No legal or natural person shall be entitled to join more  than one Constituency or Stakeholder GROUP as a voting member.

Section 3. Policy and Consensus

All members of GROUPs shall be eligible to participate in the Policy  work of the GROUP and to join Committees formed to deal with policy  issues and other GROUP issues, including eligibility of membership in  the GROUP’s committees.

GROUPs shall function on the GNSO WG model for the purpose of reaching  consensus and the use of voting should be minimized as much as possible.  7

h2. *08 January Meeting Notes/Action Items: (For previous meetings see* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20100108.mp3] *and* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-08jan10-en.pdf]*)*

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy -- Intellectual Property Constituency

*Staff*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

1. The Work Team revised the text prepared by Subworking Team 1, Leader: SS.

2. The Work Team agreed to changes to the text that will be reflected in its new version in the wiki page at [Task 1 Subtask 1|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1] up to paragraph Section 1b. Documents and comments sent by Krista were considered.

3. With respect to Paragraph Section 1a Victoria suggested that the  following language should be appended to the paragraph: "FOR THE  AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, WHILE COMMONALITY IS ENCOURAGED IN THE INTERESTS OF  SIMPLIFICATION, GROUPS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE IDENTICAL RULES AND  VARIATION BETWEEN GROUPS IS ACCEPTABLE, AS APPROPRIATE." This change is  reflected in the document on the wiki page referenced above.

4. With respect to Paragraph Section 1c, this new version detailed here  includes a text suggested by Victoria (THE CHANGE IS IN ALL CAPS). "c.  All GROUPs shall improve inclusiveness and representativeness and shall  explore the possibility to have differential fee structures based on  ability to pay, in order to encourage increased representation from  those living in less developed economies. ALL GROUPS SHOULD HAVE A  MECHANISM FOR ANY POTENTIAL MEMBER TO APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP RELIEF FROM  THE NORMAL FEE SCALE." This change also is reflected in the document on  the wiki page referenced above. The Work Team did not agree on a final  text, so Work Team members should contribute additional comments to the  list.

5. The Work Team agreed to meet next week on Friday, 15 January, for two  hours to continue this discussion. There will not be a meeting on  Friday, 22 January.

h2. *18 December 2009 (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-18dec09-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20091218.mp3]*)*

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Krista Papac - gTLD Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

*Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

1. The Work Team will review Task 1 draft documents 1.1 and 1.2, in their respective order.
2. The Work Team will send comments and issues to be reviewed to the Work Team email list.
3. Julie Hedlund will coordinate with the Subteam leader to prepare a list of issues and concerns.
4. At the meeting on 08 January the Work Team will discuss the Task 1, Subtask 1 document using the wiki.
5. Julie will incorporate revisions from the discussion as agreed to by the Work Team.
6. Each Task 1 subteam leader will actively participate in the call  during which the document is reviewed. If he or she cannot make the call  they should communicate this in advance to the list so we can decide  how to proceed.

*\^\^ 04 December 2009 (See* [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-04dec09-en.pdf] *and* [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20091204.mp3]*)*

*Attendees*

• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Debra Hughes - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial Business Users Constituency
• SS Kshatriya - Individual
• Victoria McEvedy -- Intellectual Property Constituency
• Krista Papac - gTLD Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
• Glen de Saint-Gery

*Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

*1. Subtask 1.1:* SS sent the final draft document to the  full Work Team for review. He will incorporate comments from the Work  Team and will work with Chuck concerning additional language to be  complete by 18 December.

*2. Subtask 1.2:* Victoria sent a revised document to the  Sub Team to review. She will set up a call with the Sub Team to address  any final changes. She will send a final document to the full Work Team  to consider before 18 December.

*3. Subtask 1.3:* Krista will work with Michael  concerning the recommendations relating to the database administration.  She will send a final document for the full Work Team to consider before  18 December.

h2. *06 November 2009* (See [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-06nov09-en.pdf] and [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20091106.mp3])

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Krista Papac - gTLD Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*
• Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
• Gisella Gruber-White
• Glen de Saint-Gery

*Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

*1. Subtask 1.1:* SS sent the final draft document to the  Sub Team for review. Claudio provided comments that SS included in the  final draft. The Work Team should review the final draft. *The deadline for responses is Friday, 13 November.*

*2. Subtask 1.2:* Victoria sent the final draft document  to the Sub Team for review. The Work Team reviewed the draft document.  Some members expressed objections to "Annex B - Code of Practice for  ICANN Staff" and also noted that there was no corresponding  recommendation in the BGC report. Several members suggested that this  section should be stricken. Michael Young also noted that his comments  were missing from the final draft. "The Work Team members suggested that  Victoria should revise the draft to include Michael's comments and  should confirm which sub team members agree with the recommendations and  which do not, before circulating the final draft to the full Work Team.  In addition, the sub team should provide additional comments by Friday,  06 November.\*

*3. Subtask 1.3:* Krista agreed to incorporate sub team comments and circulate a final draft to the full Work Team, which she did on 25 October. *The deadline for responses from Work Team members is Friday, 13 November.*

h2. *25 October 2009*

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

*Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

*1. Subtask 1.1:* SS sent the final draft document to the  Sub Team for review. Claudio provided comments that SS included in the  final draft. The draft now is ready for circulation to the full Work  Team. *The deadline for responses is Friday, 13 November.*

*2. Subtask 1.2:* Victoria sent the final draft document  to the Sub Team for review. The Work Team reviewed the draft document.  Some members expressed objections to Annex B - Code of Practice for  ICANN Staff and also noted that there was no corresponding  recommendation in the BGC report. Several members suggested that this  section should be stricken. Michael Young also noted that his comments  were missing from the final draft. The Work Team members suggested that  Victoria should revise the draft to include Michael's comments and  should confirm which sub team members agree with the recommendations and  which do not, before circulating the final draft to the full Work Team.  In addition, *the sub team should provide additional comments by Friday, 06 November.*

*3. Subtask 1.3:* Krista agreed to incorporate sub team comments and circulate a final draft to the full Work Team, which she did on 25 October. *The deadline for responses from Work Team members is Friday, 13 November.*

h2. *16 October 2009* (See [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20091016.mp3])

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

*Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

1. Subtask 1.1: SS sent the final draft document to the Sub Team for  review. Claudio noted that he will circulate his comments on the final  draft to SS. The deadline for all Sub Team members to send comments to  SS is Monday, 19 October. SS will circulate a revised final draft of the  recommendations to the full Work Team by Wednesday, 21 October. Chuck  requested that the names of the Sub Team members should be included with  the draft recommendations including whether each Sub Team member  assented or dissented on the recommendations.

2. Subtask 1.2: Victoria sent the final draft document to the Sub Team  for review. Final Sub Team comments are due to Victoria by Monday, 19  October. Victoria will circulate a revised final draft of the  recommendations to the full Work Team by Wednesday, 21 October. She  agreed to include minority opinions.

3. Subtask 1.3: Krista sent the final draft document to the full Working  Team for review. She received comments from Chuck. She will incorporate  Chuck's comments along with any that she might receive from Claudio and  will recirculate the document to the full Working Team for review by  Wednesday, 21 October.

4. Subtask 1.4: Minority reports were due by Friday, 16 October. SS and  Victoria submitted minority reports on the issue of whether the Subtask  1.4 recommendation document should be sent to the OSC ahead of the other  subtask recommendation documents. Rafik also had dissented from sending  the recommendations forward, but as of 16 October he had not sent a  minority report. Chuck noted that in order for the recommendations to be  considered by the OSC at its meeting on Sunday, 25 October, he would  need to be able to send the document with the minority reports by  Sunday, 18 October. Olga agreed to extend for one day the deadline for  receiving minority reports to Saturday, 17 October. Julie agreed to  incorporate the minority reports with the recommendations and to  indicate which Work Team members assented/dissented on sending the  document forward. Olga agreed to review past emails and document to  ensure that forwarding the document to the OSC was in accordance with  the Work Team Chater.

5. Deadlines for Submitting Recommendations: Olga asked whether there  were deadlines for sending the remaining recommendations to the OSC.  Chuck noted that there is not set deadline and that although it was  important to be able to move forward on the recommendations, the process  should not be rushed and there should be time to develop consensus and  thoroughly consider all points of view.

h2. *09 October 2009* (See [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-09oct09-en.pdf] and [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20091009.mp3])

*Attendees*

• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - Vice Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

*Meeting Notes/Action Items:*

1. Task 1, Subtask 4, Tool Kit of Services: Due date for minority reports is Friday, 16 October.
2. Task 1, Subtask 1, Update from SS: Sub team members provided comments  to Draft 3 of the recommendations. SS will incorporate the comments and  welcomes language concerning the issue of uniformity in membership.
3. Task 1, Subtask 2, Update from Victoria: The sub team is developing a  compromise draft of the recommendations, although some points are still  under discussion. The final draft may be completed by the next meeting.
4. Task 1, Subtask 3, Update from Tony: There were no further comments  on the latest draft. Tony will circulate the latest draft to the full  Work Team for comments.

h2. *25 September 2009* (See [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-25sep09-en.pdf] and [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20090925.mp3])

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli, Chair - NomCom Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

Meeting Notes

1. SS will provide an amended version of the recommendations considering comments received.

2. Victoria held a sub-team call on Friday, 25 September and will incorporate comments received into an updated draft document.

3. Tony Harris asked Work Team members to review her revised draft  document incorporating the most recent comments received from Work Team  members.

4. Julie revised the text of the subtask 4 document and circulated it to the Work Team for review.

The Work Team should start thinking about how to merge all draft  documents into one single outcome for Task 1, and approaches for Task 2.

h2. *04 September 2009:* (See [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-04sep09-en.pdf] and [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090904.mp3])

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

*Meeting Notes from Olga*

1. SS shared his draft document with us, Chuck and myself made comments.  The rest of the working team members are welcome to send theirs.

2. Victoria will send to the Work Team a new version of her document and  we will comment it during next conference call on Friday 11 September.

3. Krista will share her draft document during next week, we will comment on it also during next conference call.

4. Julie is revising the text of sub task 4 document, and will update it after consultations with ICANN staff.

The Work Team agreed to have a conference call next Friday 11 September and after it keep the biweekly schedule.

The Work Team should start thinking about how to merge all draft  documents into one single outcome for Task 1, perhaps we can discuss  this in our next conference call if we have the time.

h2. *04 September 2009, 1300 UTC* (See [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090904.mp3] and [Previous Meeting Agendas|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090904153359-0-6457/original/GNSO%20OSC-CSG%20Work%20Team%20Meeting%20Agendas.doc] )

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

*Meeting Notes from Olga*

First I want to thank all of you for your hard work. Although we decided  not to rush to finish our draft recommendations document for next  Thursday, the experience has been very good and brought a new dynamic to  our team.

In relation with sub task draft documents:

1. SS shared his draft document with us, Chuck and myself made comments.  The rest of the working team members are welcome to send theirs.

2. Victoria will send to the working team a new version of her document  and we will comment it during next conference call on Friday 11  September.

3. Krista will share her draft document during next week, we will comment on it also during next conference call.

4. Julie is revising the text of sub task 4 document, and will update it after consultations with ICANN staff.

The Work Team agreed to have a conference call next Friday 11 September and after it keep the biweekly schedule.

The Work Team should start thinking about how to merge all draft  documents into one single outcome for Task 1, perhaps we can discuss  this in our next conference call if we have the time.

h2. *28 August 2009, 1300 UTC* (See [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cowt-20090828.mp3] and [Previous Meeting Agendas|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090904153359-0-6457/original/GNSO%20OSC-CSG%20Work%20Team%20Meeting%20Agendas.doc] .)

*Meeting Notes from Olga:*

First let me commend all of you for all the work done so far.

We have made a great progress and we still have some more work to do in  order to reach our gol in finishing a recommendations draft document by  the end of next week.

In this sense let me summarize what was discussed in our conference call today:

1. WT should look and comment SS document.
SS will add background and additional information and will circulate new  version of the document. Chuck Gomes commented: Has the subtask team  finished its work? If so, then it makes sense to me for the full WT to  review SS's document. If not, shouldn't we wait until then to avoid  redundent work.

2. A due date for sending comments to Victoria´s document is set for  next Tuesday, members of subworking team are welcome to comment and the  rest of the wt also can comment.

3. Krista and Tony will send to the list their draft recommendations  document, Victoria will join them in doing this task. WT should review  and comment the document once sent to the list.

4. Julie: is it possible to consider / include Claudio´s suggestions to  your draft document about subtask 4? Comment from Julie: Yes, but I will  need to have ICANN staff review it first.

5. Formatting of the final draft recommendations document: my suggestion  is to use the same format that Julie and Chuck use in theirs:  references, introduction, background, recommendations and add a general  conclusion. I volunteer for preparing the general draft once we have the  different parts ready.

6. Timing: we should define the due date for sending our draft document to the OSC.
Chuck, could you please help us defining this date? Considering that the  document must be approved by the OSC and by the GNSO council and next  conference call of GNSO are Sept 3 and Sept 24. Comment from Chuck: If  the OSC receives recommendations NLT 10 September, that would give a few  days for the OSC to consider them and hopefully allow submission NLT 17  September to the Council. Earlier of course would be better.

h2. *21 August 2009, 1300 UTC* (See [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-21aug09-en.pdf], [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090821.mp3], and [Previous Meeting Agendas|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090904153359-0-6457/original/GNSO%20OSC-CSG%20Work%20Team%20Meeting%20Agendas.doc] .)

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Gisella Gruber-White, Secretariat

*Agenda*

1.	Report about Board activities, if any. ICANN Staff.

Julie reported an update from Rob Hoggarth that ICANN staff will be  going back to community leaders of the existing GNSO Constituencies for  some basic charter changes in the next week or so. Specifically the  Constituencies will be asked to update their charters to reflect the new  SG structures approved by the Board and are the minimal changes  necessary to keep all the charters consistent with the Bylaws. More  substantive changes will likely await recommendations from this Work  Team.

Victoria asked why these changes wouldn’t be timed to occur with the  recommendations from this Work Team. Chuck noted that the next Board  meeting is the 27 of August and at that meeting the Board will act on  Bylaws changes and it has already approved the SG charters. He added  that the changes to the Constituency charters may not all be minor,  particularly for the NCUC, but they all should be anticipated changes.  Victoria asked if the Work Team should expedite our work so that the  recommendations could be combined with the next round of changes. Olga  noted that it depends on when we can show something. Chuck said it may  be unrealistic to complete all of our work but perhaps we could flag  items that we may recommend that could affect the constituency charters  we could focus on them and try to get them done. Olga emphasized that  this is a very important comment and could change the present dynamic of  work since the Work Team would need to determine the specific  recommendations on which to focus. Victoria emphasized that our work  goes fundamentally to those charters. Krista agreed with Chuck that it  is nearly impossible to finish all of our recommendations in time. She  suggested that the team could pick a couple of things or just work to  finish all recommendations as quickly as possible. Chuck noted that  there will be significant changes after Seoul, including Bylaws changes.  He didn’t think we need to feel that things we don’t get done now won’t  be considered. They will be considered after Seoul. Olga said that she  sees the outcome of the work of this team as fitting into the process  and she didn’t think it is efficient for the team to focus in the next  two weeks on specific items rather than proceeding with our current  dynamic of work. Chuck noted that if the subgroups think they can pull  something together he would support that. Victoria emphasized that the  subtask teams should expedite our work. Olga asked how much time do we  have? Chuck said he thought that we have no more than two weeks. Michael  asked if we schedule a meeting for next week and Olga said that would  be a great idea. She asked Gisella to set up a call at the same time for  next Friday, 28 August. Michael noted that he can assist any of the sub  teams if they need it. Olga asked how the teams should organize their  work and Chuck suggested that the sub teams should decide what they can  do to expedite their work. The sub team leaders all agreed to expedite  their work.

2. Status of Task 1 Work Plans: Subtask leaders SS, Victoria, Krista, Julie.

Subtask 1: Develop a recommended framework for participation in any  ICANN constituency that is objective, standardized, and clearly stated.  Leader: SS

SS circulated a document to subtask members. He is working on the  membership clause and will be sending it soon. He will circulate the  document to the full Work Team. Team members are encouraged to comment.

Subtask 2: Develop recommendations for clear operating principles for  each constituency to ensure that all constituencies function in a  representative, open, transparent and democratic manner. Leader:  Victoria

Olga suggested that we should review the document Victoria sent.  Victoria noted that this is a very preliminary draft. She hopes to  receive initial comments from the members of the subtask group and to  have a preliminary call to discuss their feedback. She said that we will  aim to try to reflect all views in the document and try to reach a  consensus.

Subtask 3: Develop recommendations for creating and maintaining a  database of all constituency members and others not formally a part of  any constituency that is up-to-date and publicly accessible. Leader:  Krista

Krista noted that she has a call with the NCUC on Monday and then will try to pull together the documents.

Subtask 4: Develop a “toolkit” of in-kind staff support and/or services for all constituencies. Leader: Julie

Julie has circulated the draft recommendations for Work Team review. The  next steps are: 1) Feedback and approval from the Work Team; 2)  distribution to the full OSC for review, comment, and approval;  distribution to the GNSO Council for review and action; and 4)  implementation. Olga asked whether this means that in the future all  working teams will have support from ICANN staff and whether this was  feasible. Chuck said the issue of staff support does not come under this  document, which was not intended to address staff services to support  Working Groups. Julie asked for feedback in four weeks.

3. Status of identification of Best & Bad Practices. Pending task:  New version of the Constituency Analysis Document revised by Krista and  merged version with the document prepared by Julie.

Julie circulated for review a draft analysis of the current Stakeholder Group charters.

4. Exchange of ideas about how to organize next steps. Task 2: Develop outreach program to broaden participation.

Address in a future meeting.

h2. *07 August 2009, 1300 UTC* (See [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090807.mp3], [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-ops-07aug09.pdf], and [Previous Meeting Agendas|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090904153359-0-6457/original/GNSO%20OSC-CSG%20Work%20Team%20Meeting%20Agendas.doc] )

*Attendees*

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency

*Staff*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Glen de Saint Géry, Secretariat

*Agenda*

Although it was not on the original agenda, Olga noted that Zahid had  joined the Work Team and she thanked him for his participation. She  asked Julie to schedule a call with him to go over the relevant  documents and answer any questions he might have. Julie agreed to send  him the documents and to schedule a call (scheduled for Tuesday, 11  August at 1400 UTC).

1.	Report about Board activities, if any. ICANN Staff.

Julie reported that at its 30 September Board meeting, the Directors  considered a number of issues related to GNSO Improvements, and made  significant progress towards seating the new GNSO Council in Seoul.  Specifically, the Board adopted resolutions that: \(i) approved all of  the Stakeholder Group Charters as recommended by the Structural  Improvements Committee, and (ii) approved the ability of the Contracted  Party House to select Board Seat #13, and the ability of the Non  Contracted Party House to select Board Seat #14. In addition, Julie  noted that the Board also discussed pending new Constituency  applications, and acknowledged that Staff is posting a complete set of  Bylaws Amendments for public comment. Victoria noted that these Bylaw  Amendments (Version 2), specifically the transition Article XX, address a  number of issues that impact the work of the Work Team and she asked if  Julie or Rob could send the relevant links as well as explanations  concerning the changes to the Bylaws. Julie agreed to send the  information following the meeting.

2. Status of Task 1 Work Plans: Subtask leaders SS, Victoria, Krista, Julie.

Subtask 1: Develop a recommended framework for participation in any  ICANN constituency that is objective, standardized, and clearly stated.  Leader: SS

SS said he was preparing a document and hoped to circulate it to the Work Team on 10 August.

Subtask 2: Develop recommendations for clear operating principles for  each constituency to ensure that all constituencies function in a  representative, open, transparent and democratic manner. Leader:  Victoria

Victoria noted that she had received information from Claudio, which she  will incorporate into the document she is preparing. She also noted  that she had not received information from Rafik, but she thought she  would be able to use the information Julie had previously provided. She  hoped to circulate a document to the Work Team next week.

Subtask 3: Develop recommendations for creating and maintaining a  database of all constituency members and others not formally a part of  any constituency that is up-to-date and publicly accessible. Leader:  Krista

Krista said that she was having difficulty scheduling time to talk to  Robin Gross, Chair of the NCUC. Olga offered to get in touch with  members of the NCUC who are on the GNSO Council, such as Mary Wong, Bill  Drake, and Carlos Soza. Krista agreed to send to Olga the latest email  exchange she had with Robin, for reference.

Subtask 4: Develop a “toolkit” of in-kind staff support and/or services for all constituencies. Leader: Julie

Julie noted that she and Chuck have developed draft recommendations. Rob  Hoggarth is reviewing them. After his review Julie will send them to  the Work Team to review.

3. Status of identification of Best & Bad Practices. Pending task:  New version of the Constituency Analysis Document revised by Krista and  merged version with the document prepared by Julie.

Julie prepared a revision of the Constituency Analysis document that  included additional analysis provided by Victoria and Krista. Claudio  noted that he had separately send comments to Victoria to address  questions in her analysis. Victoria agreed that she needed to  incorporate these as well as comments received from Chuck. She agreed to  revised the Constituency Analysis document and send it to the Work Team  and to Julie to post on the Wiki. Krista asked about the status of the  Stakeholder Group Charter analysis document and Julie noted that it now  is out of date since the Board has approved the new Stakeholder Group  charters. Julie agreed to revise the document based on the new charters  as these may have elements that are useful to the work of this team.  Victoria asked whether the new version of the document should be  reviewed by the Constituency representatives on the Work Team and Olga  and others agreed that this would be helpful.

4. Exchange of ideas about how to organize next steps. Task 2: Develop outreach program to broaden participation.

Olga noted that she thought that the wiki was missing certain points  about Task 2 that had been included in the presentation at the Kick-Off  meeting in Mexico City. Julie agreed to add these points to the wiki.
----
h2. *24 July 2009, 1300 UTC*

*Primary Team Members in Attendance*

• Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance*

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
Gisella Gruber-White, Secretariat

*Agenda*

1. Concerns raised by Victoria and Rafik re: document revision and transparency

• Rob -- re: question concerning the document “Suggested Additional  Stakeholder Group Charter Elements to Ensure Transparency, Openness,  Fairness and Representativeness Principles.” This was an attempt by  staff to suggest some additional elements for discussion.
• Olga -- Suggest we look at the comments to see what you might want to  incorporate in our work plans. For example, publishing member names,  working in stakeholder groups, could be relevant for our plans.
• Victoria -- What will happen to his document?
• Rob -- Any number of things could happen. It depends on how the SIC  treats it and there also are public comments. This team could also  consider it. We submitted it to the public comments forum and we will  need to summarize the comments. But the Board will decide what to do  with those comments. The Board could conceivable agree to adopt these,  but it doesn’t really change the work of this team. Regardless of what  happens in the first phase this team is tasked with looking towards the  future. On important point is that on the non-contracted party side the  Board has decided that the charters for those SGs will be transitional.
• Victoria -- Is this a new approach?
• Rob -- This is a completely new structure for ICANN and at ICANN nothing is permanent.
• Olga -- We need to focus on some guidelines for the future. I would  like to review the comments and to get some sense of them. On the next  call we could have feedback from the Board Meeting and the analysis of  the public comments.
• Victoria -- What governs staff with reference to the neutrality of document preparation? Are there regulations?
• Rob -- There are none at this time, but at Sydney the Board directed the CEO to develop a code of conduct for staff.

2. Status of Task 1 Work plans

• Subtask 1 -- SS was not on the call.
• Subtask 2 -- Victoria: I am producing a draft report and then we need  to extract the policy recommendations. Claudio -- I will get you some  more details.
• Subtask 3 -- Await a report from Krista and Tony.
• Subtask 4 -- Move forward with recommendations.

3.	Identifying Best and Bad Practices

• Olga -- I could provide some best and bad practices based on my  experiences. Victoria -- I am concerned that there could be duplication.
• Julie -- I will merge the documents from Krista and Victoria.

4. Task 2 -- Exchange Ideas

• Olga -- We should proceed with considering ideas for Task 2, but this needs to be clear on the wiki.
• Julie -- It is on the wiki in the charter, but I will list it on the main wiki page.
• Chuck -- It would be helpful to have all of the tasks laid out on the wiki.
• Julie -- I will list all tasks on the main page.
• Chuck -- If we have any ideas for best and bad practices we should be pointing them out here.
• Victoria -- We could make a suggestion for minimum best practices.
• Chuck -- This is exactly our task.
----
h2. *10 July 2009, 1300 UTC*

Action Items and Thoughts: (See [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-constituency-pps-10jul09.pdf] and [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20090710.mp3])
\--ICANN Staff will summarize latest news exchanged during the conference call and send it to the Work Team mailing list.
\--ICANN Staff will share with the group documents they prepare about transparency, openess and representativeness.
\--Work Team members should keep the original timetable for the work to be done.
\--The Work Team members should review public comment forums and other  sources of information in relation with the GNSO improvement process.
\--Each subtask working team will continue with its activities described in each workplan.
\--Julie, Victoria and Olga will work on merging different versions and imputs of the Constituency Analysis Document.
----
h2. *21 June 2009, Face-to-Face Meeting in Sydney, Australia at 1515-1645*

See [Transcript|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090625072530-0-13918/original/OSC-CSG%20Work%20Team%2021%20June%20Meeting%20Transcript.pdf]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*
· Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
· Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency (attending remotely)
· Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
· Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
· S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India) (attending remotely; had to leave early)
· Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
· Michael Young -- gTLD Registries Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*

· Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
· Rob Hoggarth -- Senior Policy Director
· Glen de Saint-Géry -- GNSO Secretariat

*MEETING AGENDA*

1. Results of the Doodle poll related with procedures for informing our working group about Board activities and other news

There were five votes in favor of ICANN staff and/or the Chair providing  reports on relevant activities of the ICANN Board prior to each meeting  and three votes for such information to be provided as available. Staff  agreed to provide updates prior to each meeting, but noted that in some  cases there may not be new information to report.

2. Status of identification of Best & Bad Practices

Michael Young suggested that subtask members should look at the  Constituency and Stakeholder Group charter analysis provided by Julie  Hedlund, or the charters themselves, to determine if there are any  elements that could form a part of the draft recommendations for best or  bad practices as these relate to the criteria listed in the Work Plans.  The Work Team agreed to extend the deadline for this task until the  next meeting, tentatively scheduled for Friday, 10 July 2009 at 1300  UTC.

3. Status of Task 1 Workplans

Claudio DiGangi noted that, with respect to Task 1, Subtask 1, he was  unaware of any updates from the subtask leader, S.S. Victoria, leader of  Subtask 2, was unable to attend the meeting to provide an update. With  respect to subtask 3, Krista Papac and Tony Harris noted that they had  some concerns with respect to establishing a member database relating to  privacy. However, they added that they would be meeting with Julie  Hedlund and Ken Bour from ICANN Staff on Monday, 22 June to discuss  ideas for a database. Following that meeting, Krista and Tony added that  they planned to meet with Constituency representatives to discuss ideas  for a membership database. Olga and Michael agreed to speak with S.S.  and Victoria to discuss next steps for their subtasks.

4. Status of the Tool Kit Draft Request letter

With respect to Subtask 4, the tool kit for Constituencies, Julie  Hedlund and Chuck Gomes agreed that it might be useful to send a  reminder at some point after the Sydney meeting.

5. Exchange of ideas on how to produce outcome documents

Olga Cavalli noted that the Work Team needs to begin to build its  outcome document. She suggeted that one way forward might be to extract  some relevant sentences from the analysis documents. Michael noted that  the Work Team needed to make more progress and to find a way forward. He  agreed that it might be useful to develop some recommendations for each  subtask, which could come from the charters or from other best  practices. Chuck noted that the Work Team’s task was not to evaluate  Constituency or Stakeholder Group charters, but to identify elements  that are good practices related to the Board recommendations.

h2. *05 June 2009, 1300 UTC*

Link to: [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090605.mp3]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*
· Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
· Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
· Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
· Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
· Michael Young -- gTLD Registries Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*
· Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
· Glen de Saint-Géry -- GNSO Secretariat

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to order/roll call
2. Check with Gisella results of the Doodle, face-to-face meeting in Sydney.

According to the results of the Doodle, the face-to-face meeting will be  held on Sunday, 21 June from 1515-1645 Sydney (0515-0645 UTC).

3. SS request of clarification about staff support

Chuck noted that it is important for the Work Team to realize that the  “staff support” is Julie and she has two other teams as well as other  projects to support in addition to the work of this team. SS emphasized  that Julie should have used the existing analysis [provided by ICANN staff to the constituencies|https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;page_name=provided%20by%20ICANN%20staff%20to%20the%20constituencies] in preparing her analysis for the Work Team. Julie noted that she did  use the analysis but that it was in a different format and did not  address the criteria identified by the team as it was produced for a  different purpose. Victoria said that the Staff should have told the  Work Team that they could not release to the Work Team the analysis for  the Constituencies and that it was inappropriate for it to be hidden  from the team. She added that the Staff did not handle this  appropriately and it was a serious failure. Olga said that she was  expecting that the Work Team members would use the information already  existing in their Constituencies. Victoria said that the Constituencies  are not making the material available. Claudio noted that his  Constituency had initial conversations with Staff following the IPC  recertification report and then drafted a response to the analysis,  which was recently posted to the list for comments after Victoria put in  a request for it. Victoria reiterated that she would have liked to have  seen the analysis and the Constituency’s response to it earlier.  Claudio agreed with Julie that the documents Staff produced for the  Constituencies were for a different process; they were produced to  initiate an informal discussion. Chuck said he was disappointed that we  have spent 50---70 percent of our time discussing these issues and he  hoped the Work Team can move forward on the task before us. He noted  that while it is useful to look at existing documents and to learn about  Constituencies, in his role as Chair of the OSC he wanted to encourage  the group to be creative and to think differently in how to fulfill the  Board’s recommendations. Victoria said she thought that the Work Team  had been delayed due to the lack of transparency.

4. Project plans revision: goals achieved, what is missing, next steps.

Olga asked about the status of the Tool Kit Request document for Subtask  4, developed by Julie and Chuck. Julie said it had been sent to  existing and proposed Constituencies and that a response had been  received from S. Subbiah, the petitioner for the IDNgTLD new  Constituency. Chuck noted that it also was received by the Registries  Constituency, sent out to Constituency members, and will be reviewed in  Sydney. Olga asked Krista to provide estimated start and due dates for  the items in Subtask 3 and suggested that she could work with Tony on  next steps. Julie offered to support Krista and Tony on the subtask and  in setting up meetings in Sydney. Chuck also suggested that Krista could  review and comment on Julie’s analysis with respect to the Registrar  Constituency. Claudio asked whether any of the Board’s recommendations  are optional. Michael also wondered whether the recommendations can have  a different emphasis. Chuck clarified that there are Board’s  recommendations but that the Work Team members can discuss how those  recommendations may be fulfilled.

5. Best and bad practices: already received information, next steps.

Olga said she was not sure the information we received from Rob is  useful for best and bad practices. She also noted that although the due  date for identifying best and bad practices was 05 June, she recommended  extending the deadline one week until 12 June. Michael said he thought  that subteam members would be providing some sort of document. He also  offered to help with Subtask 2 and other subteams. Victoria emphasized  that the Work Team should think about the bigger question: do we start  from the templates or start fresh? Chuck asked to which Board  recommendations Victoria was referring. Victoria said she was referring  to the operating principles. Chuck suggested that there isn’t a  one-size-fits all approach, but that the Work Team could consider making  recommendations on whether and where it might make sense to have common  operating principles.

6. Additional criteria for reviewing the existing information: exchange of ideas.

Olga asked whether there are additional criteria and how to extract some  relevant concepts. She suggested that the Work Team members could look  at Julie’s analysis and decide what met the Board recommendation  criteria and what did not. Victoria asked whether the subteams should  have separate meetings or submit their questions back to the full team.  Olga mentioned that the subteams could use the Wiki to organize their  work and Julie agreed to assist in setting up Wiki pages for subteams  that request them. Chuck agreed that each subteam can decide whether  they need a Wiki.

7. Any other business.

Victoria said it would be very helpful for Staff or the Chair to make a  formal report to the group about relevant and related developments. She  suggested that this could be added to each meeting agenda. However,  Krista noted that there were already so many items on the meeting  agendas and that it might be better to simply provide updates to the  list as they are available. Olga agreed to request suggestions from  other team members on this matter.
----
h2. *22 May 2009 1300 UTC*

Link to [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-ops-22may09.pdf] and [MP3|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cowt-20090522.mp3]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*

· Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
· Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
· Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
· Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
· Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
· S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
· Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
· Michael Young -- gTLD Registries Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*

· Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
· Gisella Gruber-White - GNSO Secretariat
· Glen de Saint-Géry -- GNSO Secretariat

*MEETING AGENDA*

1. Call to order/roll call.
2. Review the status of pending issues:

2.1 Letter to OSC

Michael sent a draft letter to the Work Team email list for review and  consideration. Olga asked whether the Work Team should delay sending the  letter considering the information sent by Denise Michel to the GNSO  Council that suggests that the schedule for seating the new Council may  be delayed. Michael suggested that until the schedule is clear we should  delay sending the letter. Victoria agreed that we should wait and see  until we have seen the Resolution. Chuck noted that after Denise had  posted her message to the Council list some Council members raised the  question as to whether there will be specific direction concerning the  new timetable. In particular, Tony Harris mentioned that the  restructured Council should be seated at an in-person meeting, at Seoul.  Chuck further emphasized that the Council have asked that this  timetable be specifically stated. He also noted that concerning the  stakeholder group charter approvals the Board has asked Staff to come  back with specific recommendations, which Julie confirmed.

2.2 Project Plans

Olga noted that subtask leaders were to have developed a preliminary  project plan by 22 May suggesting the timing for completing their  subtasks and that the Work Team has received the plans for Subtask 2  from Victoria and Subtask 4 from Julie and Chuck. She asked Work Team  members to confirm when they would submit their plans, adding that she  had spoken with Krista who promised to complete hers shortly. Both S.S.  and Tony agreed that they could submit their plans by a new due date of  26 May.

2.3 Identification of Best & Bad Practices

The Work Team agreed to continue to work towards the due date of 05 June  to complete the identification of best and bad practices for each of  their subtasks.

3. Comments to the letter drafted by Julie "Draft Toolkit Feedback Request for Documents."

Olga suggested to change the order of the information in the request  document. Julie will make the changes and send a revised version to  Olga, who will send out the revised request.

4. Comments on how to enhance constituency participation in our working  team: Should we have a conference call on Friday May 29th?

Tony would not be able to attend on the 29th. Olga suggested that Krista  and Claudio could review the minutes from this call and follow the  discussion on the list rather than scheduling an additional call. Tony  noted that to enhance participation from constituencies it would be  helpful to know which team members will be at the Sydney meeting. Olga  agreed to send an email to the list to determine who would not be going  to Sydney to be able to schedule a Sydney Work Team meeting at the  appropriate time to accommodate various time zones.

5. Comments in relation with base documents for our work prepared by staff:

· Constituency analysis
· Proposed Stakeholder group charter analysis
· So far we have recieved comments from RyC and IPC, so there is a new  version that incorporates these inputs. Are there any other comments  about these tables? Could we consider these documents completed as a  reference for the continuation of our work?

Olga asked Tony and Zahid to review the analysis documents provided by  staff for their constituencies and to suggest changes or deletions. Tony  noted that when the constituency charters were developed there was some  leeway to do things differently in each constituency. Chuck agreed that  the Work Team will find that there are areas where there should be  consistency and others for flexibility as we consider the Board  recommendations. Tony emphasized, for example, that the ISPCP web site  doesn’t reflect how the constituency does outreach, which is probably an  omission of information, but not of action.

Victoria wondered whether it might make sense to bifurcate the work to  focus on the constituency charters first and hold off on analyzing the  stakeholder group charters until the staff makes its recommendations  concerning changes. Chuck asked if the staff would make their  recommendations soon and Julie agreed that they would be completed soon.  Chuck added that since the staff work would be done soon it should not  be a problem for the Work Team to delay analysis of stakeholder group  charters. Victoria agreed that the team could do the work in two stages  and Tony also thought this was a good idea. Chuck noted that as far as  the work plans go the Work Team can adjust our dates to be flexible.  Olga agreed that the Work Team would have different dates in the Work  Plans for analysis of constituency and stakeholder group charters.

6. Next steps: analysis of the existing information and expected outome format

· SS has made an excellent analysis of the documents produced by staff.
· Should a similar detailed analisys be produced for all the base  documents when the working team has agreed on their content? How should  we organize this work?

Olga asked what the Work Team should be doing as we prepare our  recommendations and how to produce a recommendation document. Victoria  noted that until the subgroups have done some work and we see the  various formats it might be too early to try to decide on the format for  a recommendations document. Chuck and Michael agreed. S.S. emphasized  that the question that he asked in his email was different than what  Olga was asking. Specifically, he was wondering if staff could make a  comprehensive analysis and also whether such an analysis had already  been completed for the Board. Victoria noted that any analysis the staff  may have produced at the Board’s request would be confidential and not  available to the team. Chuck asked S.S. to clarify what he was asking  staff to do. S.S. added that there are six constituencies and documents  and that instead of each team member going through the documents, could  staff take all possible criteria to see what each constituency is doing.  Victoria noted that she found the staff analysis to be conclusory and  that it might be helpful to merge the analysis S.S. and she have  provided into a master table. Olga suggested that the team could  exchange ideas on the email list for additional criteria to be analyzed  and that this would help Julie to understand what needs to be done. Tony  agreed and asked team members to indicate which criteria should be  added. Victoria agreed to provide some ideas.

7. The formal status of the COT as a constituent part of the OSC and the  role of the OSC in relation with our work product (Suggested by  Victoria)

Victoria noted that it was her understanding that people are reporting  out of the various OSC Work Teams to the OSC and she wanted to make sure  that there was no duplication between the efforts of the OSC and the  Constituency Operations Work Team. From the information she received  from Julie, it appeared to her that the OSC has an oversight role. Chuck  agreed that is correct and that the OSC is overseeing the tasks of the  various work teams and then informing the Council of the activities.

8. Any Other Business

Victoria asked if Chuck and Olga could share information that might be  relevant to the work of the team. Chuck agreed to do this and Olga asked  him to send any items of interest to the Work Team email list.

9. Action Items

*1. Project Plans:* Each subtask leader should develop a  preliminary project plan suggesting the timing for completing the  subtask. New due date: Tuesday, 26 May
*2. Identification of Best & Bad Practices:* Subtask  leaders and their team members should identify best practices as well as  bad practices, as they relate to their subtasks, using as a starting  point the preliminary analysis of constituency/stakeholder charters, but  also information on constituency web pages, and directly from  constituencies. Due date: Four weeks -- by the meeting on Friday, 05 June
*3. Draft Toolkit Feedback Request Document:* Julie will make the changes Olga has suggested and send a revision to Olga and the team. Due date: Tuesday, 26 May
*4. Additional Criteria for Constituency Charter Analysis:* Work Team members will provide suggestions for additional criteria to the email list.
----
h2. *08 May 2009, 1300 UTC*

Links to: [Transcript|http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-csg-08may09.pdf] and [MP3 Recording|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ops-20090508.mp3]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*
• Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
• Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
• S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
• Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
• Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*
• Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
• Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

*MEETING AGENDA*

*1. Call to order/roll call. 2. Comments and inputs in relation  with the documents drafted by Staff: Constituency and proposed  stakeholder group charter analyses:*

Claudio, Victoria, and S.S. will post additional comments to the Work  Team email list concerning the documents. Chuck encouraged further  comments and clarifications to make sure that the data are as accurate  as possible. Michael suggested that each of the subtask teams should go  through the documents and determine some examples that meet the Board  recommendations.

*3. Timing with Respect to Seating of the New GNSO Council*

With respect to timing and impact on the team’s tasks, Victoria asked  about the seating of the new GNSO Council and the Board's approval of  constituency renewals and stakeholder group charters. Chuck pointed out  that the timing of the seating of the new GNSO Council does not impact  the work of the team. He noted that some changes to the Bylaws and to  the Council Rules and Procedures need to be completed and that these may  delay the seating of the new Council beyond the deadline of the ICANN  meeting in Sydney in June. He added that at its next meeting in May the  Board likely would address this issue. Michael suggested that the team  should determine the right scope of work and schedules rather than  constrain the scope in anticipation of an uncertain schedule. Chuck  agreed that the team should do best job possible and if that takes a  little longer that is accepted and expected.

*4. Timing with Respect to Board Approval of Constituency and Stakeholder Group Charters*

Chuck pointed out that the Board’s approval of constituency renewals,  new constituency charters, and stakeholder group charters might take  longer than expected. As this approval needs to occur before the new  GNSO Council can be seated, as well as the changes to the Bylaws, he  noted that the current Council had sent a message to the Board alerting  them to the concern that the June deadline might not be met. S.S. asked  for clarification concerning the impact on the team’s work. Chuck noted  that there probably would be elements in some of the subtasks that may  be dependent on the constituency and stakeholder group charters and that  the team members may have to flag them and go on to other items.

After some discussion the Work Team members agreed that it would be  helpful for the team to send a formal request to the OSC as a matter of  record expressing concern with possible conflicts with respect to the  work of the team and the timing of the Board approval of constituency  and stakeholder group charters. Michael agreed to take that as an action  item and will draft a letter for the team to review.

Chuck added that ICANN staff has discussed the proposed charters with  the Board and gave them an overview. The next step is for staff to work  with the Board’s Structural Improvement Committee to determine where  changes may need to be made in constituency and stakeholder group  charters. Victoria asked for clarification concerning the timing of this  parallel process and Chuck said that the GNSO Council also has  addressed this question to the Board and that the Board likely would  address it at their next meeting. Victoria suggested that the team could  express concerns with this process in the letter to the OSC and Michael  agreed to add that to his action item.

*5. Scheduling and Next Steps*

Michael suggested that for the next meeting the subtask leaders should  develop a project timeline indicating how much time they need to  complete their subtasks and provide reports at each meeting. Chuck noted  that he and Julie had begun work on Subtask 4 and that we may have some  estimated timeframes in a week or so. S.S. agreed to send an email to  the other participants in his group to seek their opinions on work he  has already completed in order to develop ideas on a timeframe. Victoria  also agreed that this was feasible for Subtask 2.

Chuck noted that there might be elements in each subtask that the team  could work on now, but the team may identify other items that may have  some key dependencies with the constituency/stakeholder charter approval  process. Michael suggested that the Work team was engaging in a  parallel, but separate, process to what the constituencies and  stakeholder groups are doing. Chuck added that the team should look at  best practices, or those that best meet the Board recommendations, and  should look beyond the charters to get input from constituencies.  Michael suggested that the subtask leaders and their team members review  the analysis documents and pull out what they think are potential best  practices. Victoria added that it would be important to identify bad  practices and Chuck agreed that it could be useful to note those that  don’t comply with the Board recommendations. Michael suggested alloting  four weeks for this activity.

Victoria asked about other information that might be available on  constituencies and stakeholder groups. Julie noted that information is  linked to the GNSO Improvements website and also on the constituency  websites, but Chuck emphasized that much of the information is not on  the web and that is why the team members may need to go to their  constituencies for additional information. Michael suggested that team  members could post questions about specific information to the email  list so that team members from other constituencies can assist. Victoria  suggested looking at other organizations’ practices, such as WIPO, and  Michael agreed that was a very good idea.

*6. Action Items:*

1. Michael will draft and circulate to the team for review a letter to  the OSC expressing concern with possible conflicts with respect to the  work of the team and the timing of the Board approval of constituency  and stakeholder group charters, as well as concerns with the  constituency renewal process.
2. Each subtask leader should develop a preliminary project plan  suggesting the timing for completing the subtask. Due date: Two weeks --  by the next meeting on 22 May.
3. Subtask leaders and their team members should 4 identify best  practices as well as bad practices, as they relate to their subtasks,  using as a starting point the preliminary analysis of  constituency/stakeholder charters, but also information on constituency  web pages, and by going directly to constituencies for additional  information. Due date: Two weeks -- by the meeting on 05 June.
----
h2. *24 April 2009, 1300 UTC*

*Links to:* [Transcript|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090428194809-0-16392/original/transcript-csg-24apr09.pdf] and [MP3 Recording|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cowt-20090424.mp3]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*
* Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
* Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
* Claudio DiGangi \-Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
* Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
* Tony Harris \-Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
* S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
* Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
* Krista Papac -- Registrar Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*
* Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
* Robert Hoggarth -- Senior Policy Director
* Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

*MEETING AGENDA*

1. Call to order/roll call.

2. Staff support
* S.S. -- I asked via email for a completed statement of rules and  operating procedures in a tabulated summarized form, but received no  reply from the Chair. This information is available; staff should  provide it.
* Olga -- Apologized for not responding immediately. It also would be helpful to understand what we can expect from staff.
* Chuck -- If the Chair cannot respond to a request from a Work Team  member, the Vice-Chair can respond. With respect to staff support, if  the request is for a more significant task, the Work Team needs to agree  on a procedure that allows for prioritization.
* Victoria -- In this case, it would appear to be a simple task of gathering and compiling information. The staff should do it.
* Chuck -- It wasn't my understanding that the staff said they would not do it.
* Rob -- As described in the Work Team Charter, the staff supports the  team as directed by the Chair. The process that seems to work best for  Work Teams is to have a discussion among the Work Team members and to  have the chair make the determination.
* Olga -- The Work Team members volunteered to be on the team in order  to contribute. The Work Team needs to do the work if there are questions  on the task’s content.
* Chuck -- The staff should be able to do the work if it is a simple cut and paste.
* Julie -- To clarify my response to the request from S.S., I was  seeking direction from the Work Team because the task of compiling  information from constituency charters could be combined to address not  only subtask 1, but also subtasks 2 and 3.
* Michael -- It could help to create a consolidated document. We should decide what should go into the list.
* Julie -- I suggest using the Task 1 Work Plan table as a format and  filling in the information from constituency and stakeholder charters  for subtasks 1-3.
* Olga -- I think this is a good approach. S.S., is this acceptable to you?
* S.S. -- I agree that Julie should do a table.

3. Discuss Text for Work Plan Task 1 - Subtask 1
* Chuck -- The text should refer to both participation and membership. It is more than just membership.
* Victoria: Look, as I said at the beginning of the call I think the  email exchanges have been really interesting and I think I just want to  make the overall point again. I mean, because I think we’re quite lucky  in the scenario that we find ourselves in in the sense that we have the  report of some board governance committee’s work. Which is actually very  detailed. And they give us sort of the background context and what have  you and then they’ve given us those bullet points. I mean, the staff  workplan is basically derived, pretty closely, from the bullet points. I  think it’s on Page 43 of that report.
* Chuck) - Yeah, the detail actually is easier to find on Page 45 and 46.
* Victoria: Okay, yeah. That’s true. But what I just wanted to make - I  wanted to make a general point here. I mean, if you look at Page 43,  for example, which is just what I was working from. What I’ve asked us  to do is, is there a need for - for example, and this is the second  paragraph on the page, there are a number of specific areas that must be  addressed. The first is the need for constituency developed  participation rules for all constituencies, okay that encourage open  (unintelligible). The rules must adhere to the following provincials.  Now, the principles, the bullet points, okay? And they include those  principles have come into our workplan. Now, the point that I’m trying  to make about this is that the innumerate items in our workplan, they’re  minimum. They’re not maximums, okay? They’re floors, not ceilings in a  sense. I mean, we’ve been asked to come up with some rules and the rules  must adhere to those principles. So, I’m just - my concern is that the  work plan, in other contexts it’s also very important. But I think where  we have all this guidance and the floor discussion in this report. Our  workplan is less significant, perhaps, in another context and I don’t  think we should regard ourselves as being locked down to us because it  encompass the bigger points which are fully discussed in Section 6 of  the document. And I think this participation versus sort of membership  criteria’s are actually pretty clear example of how there’s a danger of  missing the overall point. And I went through the preparation for the  (unintelligible) to try and convey what I’ve been doing so badly at  conveying over the Internet, the emails. Some of the - the report uses  words like - it’s talking about constituency structures which need to  adapt to reflect the movement to the working group model. Reducing  various participation in (unintelligible) stakeholders. Greater  consistency across constituency structures. So, these are the bigger  points. I mean, we’ve got all that background context and I just don’t -  I think this is the kind of working team where we don’t need to be so  locked down to our workplan. That’s what I wanted to say.
* Chuck: Totally agree.
* Olga: I agree with you. I also want to thank you because your email;  it made me review my comment and made me note my mistake. So, thank you  for that. And thank you for this comment. So, I would ask you, how - I  mean, we need to some guides to make our work and to move forward as we  are a team we are not together, we are not face to face meeting very  frequently, maybe at least three times a year if we can. So, how would  you suggest that we can be more open and more flexible in not missing  any point about our main task? And, also, having a feasible workplan  which is clear and which is not difficult to follow for all of the team  members that we are volunteering our time for this working group.
* Victoria: Well, my own thought is that we should just really leave -  I mean, not worry so much and now just move on from the workplan, quite  frankly. It’s taken up - it’s taken probably enough of our time. We all  know where we’re going and just leave it as it is pretty much. I just  don’t think we need to engage in detailed semantics about it when we’re  really working from a (unintelligible) much bigger reference point which  is so (unintelligible) and clear. But, I think it’s a point that we  need to be - I mean, we need to entrench this in some way so that we  don’t keep getting dragged back to it and dragged to us, I think. We’d  have to decide just to use it as a reference and not a particularly  useful one.
* Michael: I think your comments are excellent and I agree with them. I  think we also need to (unintelligible) check and balance of. So, almost  what I would say is, yes, let’s push ahead as your suggesting. Let’s  let the work teams - the folks have come together to work on a sub-task,  let them have a little freedom and if they expand beyond how far we’ve  specified some of these sub-tasks and tasks, that’s okay. Let them, I  think. And then as we come back and view the results of their work then I  think what we need is an agreement that we’re going to - whatever’s  brought back in those sub-tasks or those things we just need to check on  each piece of work produced and make sure it still fits within the  confines of the intent of what we’re supposed to be doing and validate  it more on the return rather than trying to have an overtly tight  controlled on defining what they’re going to work on. I think a little  bit of creativity here is appropriate as well.
* Chuck: As far as wording the task, Olga, why don’t we just go back  to the word participation understanding that there’s some flexibility  there. Membership is too restricted.
* Olga: I agree. I think participation is wider and participation is  included in it. Victoria, I think your comments are really very helpful  and also I agree with Michael. So, I think that I would suggest that we  take your ideas as the basis for starting our work using the workplan as  kind of a guide but not stick to the wording in the workplan.

4. Constituency Representation on the Work Team
* Olga -- Are we getting active participation from all constituencies?
* Chuck -- I think we have every constituency represented.

5. Letter Proposed by Victoria "Clarification on the Timing of Board Approvals"
* Victoria -- The constituency charters have all been resubmitted.  These deal with all the operations of a constituency. I am afraid that  our work, if approved, would end up in charters for the constituencies.
* Michael -- I want to clarify that we should change the language to include stakeholder groups.
* Victoria -- That is not what the BGC report says; it doesn’t change the constituency structure.
* Michael -- It does with respect to voting.
* Chuck -- In February of last year the structure of the stakeholder  group had not been developed. We need to emphasize constituency  operations, but in the OSC we added the concept that the same tasks  apply to stakeholder groups.
* Victoria -- We need to study this further as it raises real issues.
* Chuck -- I think there will be a lot of overlap. These principles  need to apply to both areas. There may be some details that we can  highlight as we get into the recommendations.We anticipate the charters  may need to change/evolve.
* Michael -- The constituency charters may follow some of the  stakeholder group charters. If our recommendations contradict those  charters, they may need to be amended.
* Victoria -- All we can do is make recommendations, it is not in our  scope to direct changes to charters. I think the stakeholder groups and  constituencies need to know that our work might cause some changes.
* Olga -- Great point. How would we do this?
* Rob -- You have the unique advantage of the OSC Chair on your team,  who also is the Vice-Chair of the Council. The work of this team funnels  into the OSC, then to the Council, which then will approve  recommendations to the Board. Communicating via the OSC may be a more  efficient than a direct communication to the Board.
* Chuck -- If we do communicate to the OSC, I think a little more  specificity would be helpful. As each of the sub teams start to delve  in, one of the things we could focus on is whether there are certain  rules or principles that we will consider that may have more impact in  terms of what constituencies and stakeholders are doing in their  charters. A communication that identifies specific examples is more  useful than a general one. Also, as stakeholder groups and  constituencies are reviewing their charters they should be keeping in  mind the Board recommendations.
* Olga -- I suggest that we move on with our work and see if we need to communicate to the OSC.
* Chuck -- More specifically, those of us that are working on the sub  tasks should see if we can early on identify particular areas of  concern.
* Victoria -- I think it is a great idea. I would note that we bring  different perspectives to this discussion. I also note that my reading  and understanding of the BGC report is very much about common rules that  apply across all constituencies.
* Chuck -- The constituencies and stakeholder groups have the Board  recommendations and to the extent that they are not followed they may  conflict with our recommendations.
* Olga -- We should look to develop feedback on possible areas of conflict with each of our constituencies.
* Julie -- I suggest that the Work Team members could use the table I will develop to flag areas of concern.
* Chuck -- Good idea.
* Rob: Many of you are perhaps familiar with - because you were in  Mexico City are aware of the award resolution with respect to  constituency renewal. Also as members of various constituencies you may  be aware that as a follow-up to that resolution the staff has been  having informal discussions with constituency leaders to talk about  their renewal submission. The board set up a process by which staff  would give some feedback to the board about potential changes that the  board may want to ask individual constituencies to make to adjust their  charters to compile with the principles and the bylaws of transparency,  openness and fairness. What I will commit to do, as a staff member, as  we prepare that information for the board I will alert them and remind  them of this work teams jurisdiction and efforts so that they at least  have that insight into the GNSO operations that these discussions are  taking place.
* Victoria: Robert, could I just jump in there for a second and ask  you just to clarify this? Does the board resolution authorize this  information procedure?
* Rob: Yes, the resolution specifically says it is resolved if the  board acknowledges and thanks the distinct constituencies for their  submissions and awaits completion of the following activities; one,  staff analysis and constituency submissions and public comment and  identification of changes that the board may want to request each  constituency to make over the coming months. To ensure that their  charters and subsequent activities comply with the principles contained  in the bylaws. And expanded upon in the GNSO improvements report and  subsequent GNSO improvements report and subsequent GNSO restructuring  resolutions approved by the board last year. Number 2, follow-up  submissions from constituencies as needed provided to the board no later  than at June 2009 meeting to confirm those constituencies have  implemented recommended changes. We had informed the board that we were  going through an analysis charter document that had been submitted and  they agreed not formally in this resolution but got a useful process  where as for us to provide some initial feedback to existing  constituencies to give them a sense of our efforts. And so we are doing  that with their blessing but that was not an official part of the  resolution.
* Victoria: Well, I have to say I’m really astonished to hear this and  to hear it so late given that it goes directly to the heart of our  work. And it’s actually (unintelligible) exactly what I feel. I think  I’m afraid of exercising going through the motions.
* Chuck: See, I don’t see that at all. So tell me why - can you give  me an example of anything that we would be doing that would be going  through the motions?
* Victoria: I’d very much like to have a look at that board resolution  and I’d also like to have a look at those staff analysis and I think  the committee should have a chance to review the work that’s already  been done and then perhaps discuss this on our next call.
* Rob: I would be perfectly happy to, momentarily here, I shoot the  resolution link. I’m pulling it up here on my laptop. I can circulate  that to the group and we’ll certainly do so.
* Chuck: Again, I make my request that let’s talk about specific examples where we think that we’re wasting our time?
* Victoria: Well, I’d like to read that board resolution and I’d also - as I say, thank you Robert for offering to send it over.
* I mean, I think it’s very important that I’d like to be fully  informed before we have, what I think, is a very, very important  discussion and I haven’t seen any of these documents. Now, Robert, can I  ask you then, while we’re on this topic, what analysis of the charters  has already been done by the staff?
* Rob: The staff has gone through the charters that were submitted  that have been posted in the public comment forum. We are also going  through the process and have been and - and actually went through the  process of analyzing and summarizing the public comments that were made  with respect to the charters. We have put together some preliminary  documentation as we have gone through the various charters to try to get  some general assessment as to whether there are areas of commonality  between different charters than the rest that might be useful for other  groups to investigate or share. The process that we outline to the board  is that we’ve had some initial informal discussions with the existing  constituencies, tell them what the status of our work was generally as  we prepare to provide a report to the board. That’s still in its real  preliminary stages, I must confess, given other recommendations and  requirements that the board has asked us to do. But, that’s generally  where we are at this point.
* Victoria: Robert, is there any work products that would be - would  obviously, because obviously there’s a lot of crossover with the  exercise that (Julie)’s been tasked with? I mean, it sounds like that  exercise has already been undertaken.
* Rob: I’ll ask (Julie) because I don’t know if that’s true, and I  must confess, I don’t know the specific work product that you guys have  been talking about for her to generate. Clearly we don’t want to  duplicate effort. So, that’s something that I’ll talk directly with her  about. We have, in general talked; let’s see, with two or three  constituencies in general about our observations. I’ll check and see  what the specific documentation is that we have. The initial approach  that the board suggested was just to have some informal discussion but I  can’t see myself any reason why we couldn’t share that documentation  with this work team to help you guys in your efforts.
* Victoria: That’s great. And can I just ask you, were are going to  send us the board resolution, can you also refer us to the board meeting  authorizing this procedure?
* Rob: Sure.
* Victoria: That would be great. I’d just like to see \-I’d just like  to fully understand the background and how the exercise is working and  just...I’d like to see all the constitutional documents etc., etc. So,  that would be helpful and then we can talk about it on the next call.
* Olga: Thank you Rob and (Victoria). If you receive this information  and you can share with us your concerns that, at least for me, would be  very helpful and I think for the working group also.
----
h2. *10 April 2009, 1300 UTC*

*Links to:* [Transcript|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090428194910-0-16604/original/transcript-csg-10apr09.pdf] and [MP3 Recording|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-co-20090410.mp3]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*
* Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
* Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
* Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
* Tony Harris\- Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
* S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
* Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*
* Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
* Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

*MEETING AGENDA*

1. Call to order/roll call.

2. Discuss charter and priority of tasks/vote on Charter.
* S.S.Kshatriyanoted that the language in Section III Work Team Rules  and Procedures, Decision Making, was unclear. Chuck Gomes suggested  deleting the words “of stakeholders” so that the amended sentence would  read: “In all cases, the Chair will include the names and affiliations  of those in support of each position and for participants representing a  group(e.g., constituencies, stakeholder groups, other groups) will  indicate if their support represents the consensus view of their group.”
* The team agreed to vote on the draft charter. To allow those unable  to participate in the conference call to vote, the vote will be held  open until the end of the day on Monday, 13, April. If no dissenting  comments are received by that time the charter will be considered to be  approved.
* *ACTION ITEM: Work Team members are requested to review the  draft charter and to indicate their approval/disapproval by the end of  the day Monday, 13 April.*

3. Report on ICANN staff outreach to new constituencies.
* The ICANN staff have reached out to the following proposed new  constituencies: The CyberSafety Constituency, the new City TLD  Constituency, and the Consumer Constituency. Julie Hedlund will report  to the Work Team of any member of these proposed new constituencies asks  to participate. Julie noted that these are proposed constituencies that  have yet to be approved by the Board. Information concerning the new  constituency process including petitions and charters may be found [here|http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm]
* Olga Cavalli asked whether all constituencies were participating in  this Work Team. Chuck noted that all constituencies were represented.
* VictoriaMcEvedyasked if there was an authorization procedure for  participation from constituencies. Chuck said that it is for each  constituency to decide who is the appropriate liaison and whether there  should be alternate liaisons to the Work Team.

4. Discuss draft work plan for the substasks of the "enhancing constituencies" task.
* Olga noted that the background information that Rob Hoggarth sent to  the team, and on which S.S. commented, would be useful to provide  further information for these subtasks: (Link to [SS Kshatriya Comments Constituency Materials.doc|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090413135253-0-1640/original/SS%20Kshatriya%20Comments%20Constituency%20Materials.doc] )

| 1.GNSO Improvements Information Page -- Constituency Renewal Process [http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/renewal-process-en.htm|http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/renewal-process-en.htm]\\
2.ICANN Public Comment Forum -- GNSO Constituency Renewals 2009 [http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-constituency-renewals|http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-constituency-renewals]\\
3.ICANN Staff Analysis of Public Comments:Analysis of Public Comments [http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/msg00005.html|http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/msg00005.html]\\
4.Constituency Survey Report - [http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-28jan09-en.pdf|http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-28jan09-en.pdf] |
* S.S. agreed to take lead on subtask 1 and suggested that it would be  helpful to have information concerning current constituency operating  procedures.
* Victoria noted that in Subtask 1, item 1 the recommendation was for a  “template.”She suggested that the language should be changed from  “template” to “guidelines. *ACTION ITEM: Julie will make the change in the revised document.*
* Chuck suggested formatting changes: 1) add a column for  participants, and 2) put each listed item in each subtask in its own row  for ease of tracking.
* Chuck noted that it is important to have people from various  constituencies participating on each subtask.Victoria volunteered to  participate in subtask 1 and to be the lead on subtask 2.
* Victoria and Tony Harris noted that some aspects of subtask 3 may  raise privacy concerns.Chuck agreed that this is something the lead and  participants working on that subtask would need to discuss.
* Tony added that a “GNSO Discussion List” had been tried before as  the “General Assembly” list and that there were some problems with this  approach.Chuck agreed but noted that recently the idea of creating a  “cross constituency” list had been proposed and that the team members  working on this item may need to consider this idea.
* Tony agreed to participate in Subtask 3, but not as the lead.
* *ACTION ITEMS:* *1. Julie will develop a  revised document including the changes agreed to during this conference  call meeting.She will send the revised version to Work Team members and  post it on the Wiki.* 2.*Work Team members will review  the revised version: 1) comment on the text, 2) indicate if they would  lead Subtask 3 and/or Subtasks in which they will participate.*

Meeting adjourned 1400 UTC
----
h2. *27 March 2009, 1300 UTC*

*Links to:* [Transcript|https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notes:20090428194955-0-16530/original/transcript-ops-27mar09.pdf] and [MP3 Recording|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cowt-20090327.mp3]



*Primary Team Members in Attendance:*
* Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
* Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
* Claudio DiGangi -- Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
* Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
* S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
* Hector Ariel Manoff - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
* Krista Papac - Registrar c.
* Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency

*ICANN Staff in Attendance:*
* Julie Hedlund - Policy Consultant
* Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director
* Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

*MEETING AGENDA*

1. Call to order/roll call

2. Review agenda

3. Announce results of leadership poll (J. Hedlund)

*Poll Results:*

Total votes = 9
For Chair: Olga Cavalli -- 6 votes; Krista Papac -- 3 votes
For Vice-Chair: Michael Young -- 6 votes; S.S.Kshatriya -- 2 votes; Rafik Dammak -- 1 vote
Results:Chair -- Olga Cavalli; Vice-Chair: Michael Young

4. Discuss schedule for recurring meetings
* Next meeting, 10th April. Every two weeks thereafter.

5. Discuss draft [Work Team charter|https://st.icann.org/static/3.1.2.8/skin/s3/html/index.cgi?action=display;is_incipient=1;page_name=Work%20Team%20charter]



The team discussed and agreed to the following changes:

Minor edits to two sub-bullets in Section I Team Charter/Goals under “Enhance existing constituencies”
* Change the title of Section II to “Team Membership Guidelines."
* In Section II, #2 change the number of councillors from “three” to “four”

* In Section II add #8 describing the election and duties of the chair/vice-chair
* Change the title of Section III to “Work Team Rules and Procedures”
* In Section III minor textual changes to the Statements of Interest section
* In Section III, Decision Making, changes to the description of Rough  Consensus and Strong Support two make these more precise; change  “Minority viewpoints” to “No majority position”
* In Section III, Restricting participation, Recordkeeping, and Milestones: minor textual changes
* Change the title of Section VI to “Action Items and Deliverables”
* In Section VI replace action items with a revised “list of  preliminary deliverables” as follows: 1. Election of Chair and Vice  Chair; 2. Schedule for recurring meetings; 3. WT Charter; 4. Regular  Reports to the OSC (at least biweekly); 5. Identification of Key  Projects; 6. Work Plan; 7. Calendar; and 8. Final Implementation Plan.
* In Section VI append the checklist table of suggested projects and subtasks

6. Team Membership
* After some discussion, the team determined that it meets the  guidelines in the charter for team membership; although the team does  not have representatives from the ALAC and GAC, both groups were invited  to send representatives.
* Agreed that the team should strive to keep the membership balanced in its representation.
* It was noted that some OSC team members may be on too many committees, which may prevent them from being active.
* Michael Young suggested that wording could be added to the charter  to define the roles of “active” versus “non-active” members.He agreed to  suggest language.
* Chuck Gomes noted that in the case of working groups the Board  recommended moving away from voting and to a rough consensus model as  described in Section II Work Team Rules and Procedures.Olga Cavalli  noted that this is the best way to work with a group that is not too  large.

7. Discuss Action Items and Deliverables
* Olga noted that it would be useful to have background documents  concerning current constituency participation rules and operating  procedures to assist the Work Team in its task to “Enhance existing  constituencies by developing recommendations on constituency  participation rules, operating principles, and database of members.”Rob  Hoggarth agreed to send to the teambackground information regarding  existing GNSO constituencies.
* Chuck noted that this particularly work team will be dependent on  constituency input, but that the team needs to be sensitive to  constituencies -- we can’t tell them what they should be doing but there  are some common elements that should be true for all constituencies.
* Olga added that the team’s challenge is to define a base group of  information or best practices that any constituency could follow.
* S.S.Kshatriyasuggested that the team could develop questionnaires to  send to constituencies and use the information gathered to develop  guidelines.
* Rob said that the ICANN staff had sent out a questionnaire to  constituencies at the end of 2008 and promised to circulate the results  to the team.
* After discussion of the prioritization of its tasks based on the  Board’s recommendations, as described in the draft checklist the team  decided to develop draft work plans for the subtasks of the “enhancing  constituencies” task while considering whether also to begin work on an  outreach plan.Olga, Michael, and Julie agreed to develop a draft work  plan for the team to consider.
* Chuck emphasized that it would be helpful to reach out to the new  constituencies to see if they want to send representatives to work with  the team.Rob and Julie agreed to initiate this effort.
* The work team also agreed that those team members who are  representing constituencies should act as liasons to communicate the  activities of the team with their membership.

*Action Items:*

1. Review the revised charter and provide comments or edits.

2. Review background information regarding existing GNSO constituencies.

3. ICANN staff to assist in reachingout to new constituencies to see if they want to send representatives to work with the team.

4. Vote on the revised charter including the priority of tasks and implementation plan at the meeting on April 10.

5. Develop draft work plan for the subtasks of the “enhancing constituencies” task.

6. Chair and Vice-Chair provide biweekly reports to the OSC.

Meeting adjourned at 1400 UTC
----
h2. *28 February 2009*

*Link to:* [MP3 Recording|http://audio.icann.org/gnso/20090228-GNSO-OSC-CSG.mp3]



The initial meeting of the GNSO OSC Constituency Operations Team was  held in Mexico City, Mexico in-person with remote teleconference  capabilities on 28 February 2009 @ 1500 UTC. Interim Chair Olga Cavalli  called the meeting to order.

In addition to Interim Chair Olga Cavalli (Nominating Committee  Appointee) the following Work Team members participated in all or part  of the meeting: Sophia Bekele (Individual)(by phone), Fred Felman  (MarkMonitor), Chuck Gomes (gTLD Registries Constituency), Tony Holmes  (Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency), S. S.  Kshatriya (Individual - India)(by phone), Hector Ariel Manoff,  (Intellectual Property Interests Constituency), Steve Metalitz  (Intellectual Property Interests Constituency), and Michael Young (gTLD  Registries Constituency).T he following Work Team members were not  present on the call: Zahid Jamil (Commercial and Business Users  Constituency), Victoria McEvedy (Intellectual Property Interests  Constituency), Hector Ariel Manoff (Intellectual Property Interests  Constituency), and Dr. Shahram Soboutipour (Individual -- Iran).

Also, the following ICANN Staff participated in the meeting: Rob  Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director; Julie Hedlund, Policy Consultant.

The main reference document for the meeting was the slide presentation  entitled “GNSO OSC-CSG Work Team Kickoff (FINAL),” which was provided to  all Work Team members prior to the meeting.

*Introductions*

Olga Cavalli initiated the meeting with brief introductions from each  meeting participant. In his introduction, Chuck Gomes, GNSO Council  Vice-Chair, emphasized that the work of the team was critical to the  GNSO improvements process, and in particular, in balancing the  uniqueness of the constituencies while standardizing some aspects of  constituency rules and procedures. He also noted that the Work Team  would develop recommendations that are very important not only for  constituencies but for stakeholder groups as well.

*Agenda*

Next, Olga Cavalli reviewed the meeting agenda as follows:
# Call to order and introductions
# Review agenda
# Review and discussion of the Work Team charter (delineation of current problems, desired outcomes and deliverables)
# Timeline for interim Work Team chair and procedures for selection of permanent chair; select vice-chair
# Procedures for finalizing Work Team charter, including proposed timeline
# Agree to regular teleconference meeting times
# All other business

In reviewing the agenda, Olga Cavalli noted that the priority task for  the team to undertake is review, editing, and approval of the Work Team  charter. She reminded team members that the draft Charter appears on the  Work Team Socialtext Wiki workspace and she asked ICANN staff to  circulate this link to the team members following the meeting.

Also, in the context of the discussion of the meeting agenda, Olga  Cavalli emphasized that an early priority for the team was to identify  and organize the Work Team projects and timelines so that they could be  included in the Charter.

Another agenda item that was briefly discussed by the team was the  “Timeline for Interim Work Team chair and procedures for selection of  permanent chair; select vice-chair.” On this matter, Olga Cavalli noted  that she had volunteered as the Interim Chair and invited other team  members to indicate whether they were interested in putting themselves  forward for position of Chair or Vice-Chair/Co-Chair. Further, she  suggested that the team might decide to approve the position of Chair  and other possible positions during this initial meeting.S he invited  comment on this issue.In his comments, S.S. Kshatriya recommended  devoting more discussion to this issue later in the meeting.

*Work Team Goals and Charter*

Next, in order to show the connection between the ICANN Board  recommendations and the work of the team, particularly its goals and  charter, Olga Cavalli briefly referenced the Five Main Areas of  Improvement as identified by the ICANN Board (slide 4): (1) GNSO Council  Restructure; (2) Revise the Policy Development Process; (3) Adopt a  Working Group Model; (4) Enhance Constituencies; (5) Improve  Communications.Moving on to the Work Team Draft Charter Goals (slide 5),  in reviewing the goals that correlate to the Board’s recommendations,  she emphasized the outreach aspects of the team’s work. In particular,  she suggested that the Work Team could decide to go further in this  respect by promoting new constituencies in the GNSO.

As an aid in the discussion of the Work Team Draft Charter Goals, Olga  Cavalli referred to the draft Charter as it appears in the Work Team  Wiki. She noted again that a Work Team priority is to identify the tasks  or projects, prioritize them, and develop timelines for them in order  to incorporate these into the Charter.To assist the Work Team in this  objective, she asked ICANN Staff to revise the draft Charter to include  the Selected Work Team Projects as they correlate to the Board  Recommendations (and as detailed in the meeting slide presentations,  slides 7-8). In addition, she asked Staff to include, by reference, the  “Draft OSC-CSG WT Board Recommendation Checklist” table to aid the Work  Team in identifying its projects and priorities.

*ICANN Board Recommendations*

In her discussion of the ICANN Board Recommendations on enhancing  constituencies (slide 6), Olga Cavalli emphasized that a key goal will  be for the Work Team to determine how best to reach out to developing  countries and non-English speakers.

At this point, S.S. Kshatriya commented that one aspect of reaching out  to developing country ICANN participants is to make information more  accessible on the web sites. In particular, he said it was particularly  difficult to find documents and other information on the GNSO  Improvements web site. Chuck Gomes noted, in response, that various past  reviews identified the shortcomings of the ICANN web sites and other  communications and, as a result, the ICANN Board had adopted specific  recommendations, which the OSC Communications Work Team will address. To  ensure that the Constituency Operations Work Team members have access  to the information they need to begin their work, Olga Cavalli asked  ICANN Staff to send to the team the relevant links from the Wikis and  the GNSO Improvements web sites.

*Suggested Work Team Projects*

Next, Olga Cavalli initiated discussion on the Suggested Work Team  Projects (slide 7) that correlate to the ICANN Board’s  Recommendations.The first of theseis to “enhance existing constituencies  by developing recommendations on constituency participation rules,  operating principles, and database of members.” With respect to this  task, she suggested it could be useful to work with existing  constituencies and look at their best practices and lessons learned. On  this point, Chuck Gomes noted that because the constituencies were  broadly represented on the Constituencies Operations Work Team it might  be best to rely on the expertise of the Work Team members rather than  initiating a review of constituency procedures. He added that, whatever  the constituency rules are, the key point with respect to the Board  Recommendations is that they must be clearly communicated. Olga Cavalli  concurred, but asked if it might be possible to have as reference the  rules of the current constituencies. S.S. Kshatriya agreed and proposed  that each constituency should report its rules and the Work Team could  determine whether there are commonalities among these rules. Steve  Metalitz noted that some of this work already has been done with the  GNSO Constituency Renewal Process recently completed in February 2009.  He suggested that ICANN Staff should prepare a chart comparing the  constituency’s rules. Rob Hoggarth agreed that there already is a good  knowledge base, but that comparing the rules could be useful. Steve  Metalitz noted that the Work Team might have to wait to address this  issue after the ICANN Board acts on the constituency re-certifications.  Rob Hoggarth agreed and suggested that the Work Team may wish to address  this issue later in the work of this particular ICANN Board  Recommendation (enhancing constituencies).

Contituency Database

Olga Cavalli next noted that one of the proposed tasks is for the Work  Team to develop and maintain a database of all constituency members and  she asked if such a database did not already exist in some form. Chuck  Gomes responded that one does not exist but added that each constituency  generally keeps a list of its members but that these are, however, not  necessarily public. Krista Papac asked for clarification concerning the  reason for the Board’s requirement for a constituency member database,  given that such a concept could generate concerns over privacy. Rob  Hoggarth responded that the impetus for the Board’s recommendation was  the need for transparency. Olga Cavalli noted that the issues for the  Work Team to consider will be who gets access, what will be its design,  and -- in particular -- how specific the database needs to be. She agreed  that there are likely to be privacy issues, but she added that the  database could be useful for reaching out to potential ICANN  participants in developing countries by helping them to identify useful  contacts within ICANN.

At this point Chuck Gomes suggested that it could be useful for the Work  Team to have minutes prepared for this meeting. He noted that the Work  Team members might decide that they do not need formal minutes for each  meeting, but that some type of summary is important to provide  transparency. Olga Cavalli agreed and requested that ICANN Staff should  take the minutes.

Constituency Toolkit

Chuck Gomes noted that another Board Recommendation concerning enhancing  constituencies was for the Work Team to develop a toolkit to offer to  each constituency. He suggested that this task might be one of the  easier of the Work Team’s tasks. He added that the Work Team may decide  that there are types of administrative support and services that could  be offered to all constituencies, such as support for setting up  teleconferences and briefings.

*Initial Work Team Activities*

Identify Internal Skill Sets and Select Team Leaders

Olga Cavalli asked the Work Team to consider the Initial Work Team  Activities (slide 9). In particular, she asked the team members whether  they wished to decide in this meeting the positions of Work Team Chair  and/or discuss whether the team also should select a Vice-Chair or  Co-Chair. In response, S.S. Kshatriya suggested that it might be useful  for the Work Team to select a Vice-Chair in addition to a Chair. He also  proposed that Olga Cavalli should remain in the position of Interim  Chair and that the Work Team should allow a period of time to determine  if there are other team members who might volunteer themselves -- or for  nominations to be presented -- for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair.  Olga Cavalli agreed and proposed that the Work Team should allow two  weeks for this process, at the conclusion of which the Work Team would  decide the position of Chair and decide whether to select a Vice-Chair.

Establish Time and Meeting Call Frequency

Next the Work Team discussed how frequently to meet via teleconference.  Olga Cavalli first asked for clarification concerning the deadline for  completing the Work Team’s tasks. Rob Hoggarth said that the Board  recommendations suggested that most tasks should be complete in 6  months, recognizing that some may require more or less time to complete.  He noted that the recommendations were originally approved by the Board  in June 2008.

In the subsequent discussion, team members presented two proposals for  meeting frequency. Some team members, including Chuck Gomes, Krista  Papac, and Olga Cavalli recommended holding meetings every 2-3 three  weeks. Tony Holmes noted, however that more frequent meetings could  create difficulties for members who are on more than one Work Team  and/or who have duties as members of the GNSO Council. He suggested that  the Work Team might have to meet less frequently and -- more importantly  -- coordinate meetings with those of other Work Teams and of the GNSO  Council. Chuck Gomes agreed that coordination was important and  recommended that ICANN Staff should develop a schedule that takes into  consideration potential conflicting meetings. Staff then should  establish a “Doodle” to determine what dates and times can accommodate  the majority of Work Team members. Olga Cavalli agreed and also proposed  initially that the Work Team should plan to meet every 2 weeks.

Establish Procedures to Finalize the Work Team Charter

Rob Hoggarth noted that another task the Work Team might wish to  consider is establishing a plan to comment on, and confirm, the Charter.  Olga Cavalli agreed that the Work Team needed to review the Charter and  she thought that to assist the team in this task it would be helpful --  as she previously mentioned -- to incorporate into the draft Charter  the“Draft OSC-CSG WT Board Recommendation Checklist” table. She also  urged Work Team members to review the draft Charter once the table and  suggested projects were included and add their comments to the Wiki.

*Action Items*

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Olga Cavalli detailed the following actions items:
# ICANN Staff should distribute to Work Team members via the email  distribution list, a list of links to key web sites and documents, and  the link to the GNSO Constituency Renewal 2009 Public Comment Forum.
# ICANN Staff should draft the meeting minutes and circulate them to Work Team members.
# ICANN Staff should revise the draft Work Team Charter on the  Constituency Operations Team Wiki to include the Board Recommendations  and incorporate, by reference, the draft project checklist table (e.g.  slide 11 discussed at the meeting).
# ICANN Staff should review the schedule of upcoming GNSO meetings and  establish a “Doodle” scheduling tool to determine the best days of the  week to target for future regular Work Team meetings.
# Work Team members should volunteer and/or submit nominations for  candidates for Work Team Chair and Vice-Chair by March 14, 2009.

*Adjournment*

The meeting adjourned at approximately 1630 UTC.