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

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for that Chuck -very helpful for me and much appreciated. 

 

 

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 19:37
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

 

Victoria,

 

Our primary responsibility is to develop implementation plans for the
Board approved recommendations regarding constituency and SG operations.
If we are unable to develop recommendations that accommodate both
constituency interests and the Board's recommendations, in other words
if we end up with conflicts between the two, I believe the Board
recommendations would prevail.  The fact that the Board will be
approving charters will hopefully minimize some conflicts.

 

Chuck

         

________________________________

        From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 1:40 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Change to OSC-CSG 10 April Draft
Meeting Notes

        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