RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff Support

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok thanks Chuck -I think we have the very heart of the issue here. 

 

The word operational -does not detract from that fact that (as I keep saying) 
these issues are in fact, very important and substantive (ie not procedural and 
not about "admission templates"). 

 

The BGC's recommendations were substantive. The issues as to participation are 
substantive. I have already made these points.

 

If there is some carve out from our work -could someone please tell me what it 
is and where it comes from. Otherwise our reference is surely the BGC's report 
and recommendations. 

 

There are many vested interests are concerned to see the status quo preserved, 
and reducing our work to "templates" would suit them just fine. 

 

We need to resolve this. It's a key issue. We need to go back to the Board for 
formal answers about timing of its approvals, the current charters etc and our 
work.  

 

Regards, 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

 

 

96 Westbourne Park Road 

London 

W2 5PL

 

T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122

F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721

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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 21 April 2009 20:50
To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
Cc: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; Glen de Saint Géry; 
Rob Hoggarth
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff Support

 

Thanks for clarifying Victoria.  Please note my responses below.

 

Chuck

         

________________________________

        From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:38 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli
        Cc: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; Glen de 
Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support

        I'm sure none of us --who are volunteering our time --want to make 
recommendations that are too late to have any impact. 

         

        If the Board proceeds to approve the charters and/or constituencies 
before it now without our input -what is the point? 
        [Gomes, Chuck] In my opinion, the charters shouldn't contain much 
operational detail but should be at a higher level.  If I am wrong and we 
recommend something that goes against our recommendation, then that will have 
to be fixed later.  I would like to think that the Board will catch any major 
problems before they approve charters.  I think it is safe to assume that the 
Board will be looking for any deviances from their recommendations so they 
shouldn't approve a charter that has any such deviances.  Our task is to 
develop recommendations for implementing the Board recommendations, so if all 
of us are using the same base (the Board Recommendations), we should be okay.   

         

        If there is a formal way to ask them to wait and/or put a marker down 
that they ought to have our recommendations -then we should use it. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] What would we ask them to delay? 

         

        At present the SG's contain the old constituencies so the point remains 
I think. Until we see something new we are working with the old models? 
        [Gomes, Chuck] Like I said above, the main basis of our work is the 
Board recommendations, not old or new models.  As we do that though, we will 
try to get lots of input from existing and new constituencies and 
under-formation SGs so that our implementation recommendations address varying 
needs while at the same time accommodating the Board recommendations.   

         

        Regards, 

         

        Victoria McEvedy

        Principal 

        McEvedys

        Solicitors and Attorneys 

        

         

        96 Westbourne Park Road 

        London 

        W2 5PL

         

        T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122

        F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721

        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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 21 April 2009 20:31
        To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
        Cc: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; Glen de 
Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support

         

        Victoria,

         

        I don't believe there is any pending actions on the part of the Board 
that impacts our work on the CSG WT.  They already approved the bicameral 
Council model with 4 SGs.  That is why we need to focus on SG operations as 
well as Constituency Operations.

         

        Maybe I don't understand you question Victoria.

         

        Chuck

                 

________________________________

                From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:26 PM
                To: Olga Cavalli; Gomes, Chuck
                Cc: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; 
Glen de Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
                Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- 
Staff Support

                Chuck and Olga and Team, 

                 

                Is there a formal way of politely asking the Board to wait for 
our recommendations in these regards? 

                 

                Best, 

                 

                 

                Victoria McEvedy

                Principal 

                McEvedys

                Solicitors and Attorneys 

                

                 

                96 Westbourne Park Road 

                London 

                W2 5PL

                 

                T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122

                F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721

                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: 21 April 2009 18:36
                To: Gomes, Chuck
                Cc: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; 
Glen de Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
                Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- 
Staff Support

                 

                Thanks Chuck,
                I agree with your comments.
                Regards
                Olga

                2009/4/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

                SS

                 

                The CSG WT will need to deal with both constituency operations 
and stakeholder group operations.  The original draft charter focused solely on 
constituencies because the stakeholder group element had not yet been fully 
developed.  As I think you are aware, the SG charters are still being developed 
but I think proposed charters are available for review; none of them have been 
approved by the Board yet, nor have any of the constituency renewal requests 
been approved yet to my knowldege.

                 

                Chuck

                         

________________________________

                        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
                        Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:39 AM
                        To: OSC-CSG Work Team; Olga Cavalli
                        Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund; Glen de Saint Géry; 
Rob Hoggarth
                        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- 
Staff Support

Dear Olga,

Good to hear from you about next conference call.

1. I will need comparative statement of 'participation rules and operating 
procedures', followed by various constituencies in a tabulated/summarized form 
from the staff and also any other material they have prepared to support the 
work.

 

2. language of subtask 1.1 still remains to be resolved--constituency or 
Stakeholder group?

 

regards,

SS

--- On Tue, 4/21/09, Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call
        To: "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
        Cc: "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" 
<jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rob Hoggarth" 
<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 4:51 AM

        Dear Work Team members,

         

        In preparation for our next meeting on Friday, April 24, at 1300 UTC, I 
would like to remind you of our action items and suggest an agenda for the 
meeting. 
        
        First, for our action items ICANN staff circulated a revised Draft Task 
1 Work Plan 
(https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team).  Many 
of you provided comments and agreed to participate as follows:

         

        1.     Develop recommendations for a set of participation rules and 
operating procedures, which all constituencies should abide by

        Lead: 
        S.S. Kshatriya - Individual
        
        Participants: 
        Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency 
        Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency

         

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

        Lead: 
        Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
        
        Participants: 
        Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee 
        Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency

         

        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.

        Lead: 
        Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
        
        Participants: 
        Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency

         

        4.     Develop a "toolkit" of in-kind staff support and/or services for 
all constituencies 

               
        Lead: 
        Julie Hedlund - ICANN staff
        
        Participants: 
        Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency

         

        I suggest that we review the Work Plan so that we can be prepared to 
discuss it on Friday's call.  
        
        In particular, I think it would be useful for all of us to consider how 
we might exchange information about constituencies in relation to the subtasks. 
 
        
        Also, in our last meeting we agreed that it will be very important to 
have input from all constituencies as we develop the recommendations for these 
subtasks.  Thus far, not all constituencies are represented and it could be 
very much convenient that all of them participate actively in this process.

         

        Finally, here is a draft agenda for Friday's meeting.  Please feel free 
to suggest any changes or additions.

         

        Meeting Agenda

         

        1.  Call to order/roll call

        2.  Draft Task 1 Work Plan

            a.  Participants from constituencies that are not represented

            b.  How to exchange information about constituencies in relations 
to subtasks

            c.  First steps and schedule for draft sub-team recommendations

        3.  Any other business

         

        Thank you and I look forward to meeting with you on Friday.

         

        Best regards,

         

        Olga