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

["Julie Hedlund" <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Victoria,

I apologize, but my understanding from the call was that the term "template"
was to be removed from item #1 in the subtask and replaced with
"guidelines," and but that the rest of the wording remained the same, as in,
"1. Develop guidelines for defining admission decision procedures for a new
member for each constituency".   I can certainly change it to: "develop
guidance, rules or principles for participation."

Best regards,

Julie
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
  Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:01 PM
  To: Olga Cavalli; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
  Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] OSC-CSG Work Team Work Plan Task 1, Subtask 1


  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_work_te
am_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