RE: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC-CSG Work Team Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am sorry but I had not seen this new language since our call and I
note that only the word template was changed from the old 1.a and I
don't think that adequately covered the point we agreed on -ie that 1a
was substantive rather than procedural only. 

 

The language I suggested and I thought we all agreed was "develop
guidance, rules or principles for participation" 

 

This was to replace "template for admission decision procedures." 

 

I believe we were all in agreement. 

 

The substantive issue is criteria and guidelines for active inclusive
outreaching participation ---as I understand the BGC's recommendations. 

 

This covers key issues such as classes of members and active v inactive
and voting v non-voting members and I think is very important indeed. 

 

I apologise for not picking this up earlier but expected the change
would be made. It is difficult to find the time to check every change.  

 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedy & Associates

Solicitors 

 

 

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  

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972

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: 15 April 2009 16:20
To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC-CSG Work Team Work Plan Task 1, Subtask
1

 

Hi,
if I am not mistaken, the two alternatives are valid and different, that
is to say:

- admission for a new const. to a stakeholder group 

and

- admission for new members for a constituency

To me they are focused in different issues and one should not substute
the other.
What do others think?
Regards
Olga



2009/4/15 Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Work Team members,

 

S.S., the lead for Subtask 1, has recommended a change to make the
wording more clear for the first item under "Subtask 1: Develop
recommendations for a set of participation rules and operating
procedures, which all constituencies should abide by" in the Work Plan
at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operations_wor
k_team_task_1_work_plan.

 

Specifically, S.S. recommends changing:

 

"1.  Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a
new constituency for each stakeholder group." 

  

to: 

  

"1.  Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a
new member for each constituency."

 

I have reflected his recommendation in the plan.  Please let me know if
you have suggestions or comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

 

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund

Policy Consultant