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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it bears discussion at our meeting. 

 

I am not sure that its within our scope to be directing the Board on how it
manages its charter approvals.  I tend to think that the charters are high
level enough that they should not conflict with our recommendations.  If
they happen to, I am sure there will be an effort to reconcile charters in
conflict.  None of the stakeholder/constituencies are going to want to be
singled out as conflicted with our recommendations and they all have the
ability to amend their charters and resubmit to the Board for approval.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: April-21-09 4:19 PM
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

 

Maybe there will be time in our call on Friday to discuss this further.

 

Chuck

 


  _____  


From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:04 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

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 

cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC

 

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 

cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC

 

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 

cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC

 

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