RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Change to OSC-CSG 10 April Draft Meeting Notes

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck -that was as helpful --as ever. 
 
This issue causes me some concern. Realistically, existing
constituencies are likely to support the status quo or as close a
recreation of that as possible -and this was very evident in the
questionnaire put to the leaders; Constituency Survey Report - 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-28
jan09-en.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-2
8jan09-en.pdf>  

 

To what extent is our work to be dictated/determined by the very
constituencies we seek to reform? I think there must be a conflict here.


 

I can see that the Commercial SG have put forward a transitional charter
so presumably the final/non-transitional one for example will have to
take on any of our recommendations approved by the GNSO Council/ BGC?

 

Sorry to be raising more questions. 

 

Best,   

 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Solicitor and Attorney at Law

 

McEvedy & Associates

 

Solicitors & Attorneys

 

 

96 Westbourne Park Road 

London 

W2 5PL

 

T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122

F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721

M:   +44 (0) 7824 442 600 

M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169 

 

www.mcevedy.eu  

 

This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may
also be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please
let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its
attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents.

This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no
retainer is created by this email communication. 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 14 April 2009 15:13
To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Change to OSC-CSG 10 April Draft Meeting
Notes

 

Let me take a crack at this Victoria.

 

My first answer is that it depends on:

*       How detailed the charters are
*       Whether or not any of the CSG WT recommendations are approved by
the Council and the Board and then conflict with any elements of SG
charters.

I suspect that some of the recommendations we come up with will not
conflict with charters because the charters will not include detailed
information regarding the recommendations.  For example, I would predict
that a recommendation for ICANN funding website hosting for all SGs
would not conflict; charters will probably include the provision of an
SG website but may not discuss how that would be funded.  I know that is
the case for the proposed RySG Charter.

 

But there also may be cases where approved recommendations will conflict
with some SG charters.  Here's a possible example of that: Let's assume
the Board approves a CSG WT recommendation that all SG email lists must
be publicly archived.  I think it is quite likely that some charters
will not provide for this or may provide for no public archiving at all.
In cases like this, assuming the Board approved any such SG charters,
they will probably have to be amended.

 

Ideally, it would have probably been better to complete the CSG WT work
and seek Board approval of any recommendations before implementing the
SGs and hence the SG charters.  But the Board wanted to get the
bicameral structure implemented sooner than would be possible if we
waited until the WTs were finished.  To implement the bicameral Council,
SG charters are needed.

 

In my opinion, the above illustrates how important it is for the CSG WT
to get lots of input from constituencies and SGs so that we hopefully
can minimize conflicts between our recommendations and SG charters.  It
will probably not be possible to avoid all conflicts but maybe we can
avoid some.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Chuck 

         

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
        Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:01 AM
        To: Olga Cavalli; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Change to OSC-CSG 10 April Draft
Meeting Notes

        Can I trouble the team -and please accept my apologies if I am
missing an obvious point, how does our work fit in with the fact that
charters are already being submitted by stakeholder groups for approval?


         

        Will this render our recommendations/work ineffective and/or too
late for the restructuring?  

         

        See http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#sg-petitions
<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#sg-petitions> . 

         

        Best, 

         

        Victoria McEvedy

        Solicitor and Attorney at Law

         

        McEvedy & Associates

         

        Solicitors & Attorneys

         

         

        96 Westbourne Park Road 

        London 

        W2 5PL

         

        T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122

        F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721

        M:   +44 (0) 7824 442 600 

        M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169 

         

        www.mcevedy.eu  

         

        This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for
the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments
may also be legally privileged. If you have received this in error,
please let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its
attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents.

        This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and
no retainer is created by this email communication. 

         

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: 13 April 2009 21:12
        To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Change to OSC-CSG 10 April Draft
Meeting Notes

         

        Dear Work Team members,
        
        I hope this email finds you well.
        
        Please remember that we agreed during our last conference call
to review the draft charter and to indicate your approval/disapproval by
the end of today Monday, 13 April.
        
        If no dissenting comments are received by that time the charter
will be considered to be approved.
        
        Link to the draft charter in our Wiki: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_work_te
am_draft_charter
        
        In order to allow all the team members to review the suggested
changes, comments and deletions, the texts shows these edit marks until
we decide to agree on a certain text. 
        
        It could be useful for our working team to arrange a face to
face meeting during the Sydney ICANN meeting, so I will ask Glen to find
a time and place during for this. If you have any comments in this
regard please let me know.
        
        For those who did not participate in the conference call, you
can find the meeting notes in our wiki:  
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operation_work
_team_meeting_notes.
        
        Regards to all.
        
        Olga
        
        

        2009/4/13 Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>

        Dear Work Team members,

         

        S.S. has made an excellent suggestion that it would be helpful
if the team could easily reference the comments he has provided via
email on the constituency background materials sent by Rob Hoggarth.
Accordingly, I have placed a link to the comments provided by S.S. in
the form of a Word document at item 4  in the Draft Notes of the
meeting.   (See the Wiki at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operation_work
_team_meeting_notes.) 

         

        Please let me know if you have any questions.

         

        Best regards,

         

        Julie

         

        Julie Hedlund

        Policy Consultant