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

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

No one is suggesting that we would direct. Putting a marker down and asking for 
clarification are hardly directing anyone. 

 

My own concern is not to be involved in an exercise of going through the 
motions for forms sake only. 

 

Either the Board will wait for us or it will not ---in which case we should 
cease work.    

 

We are tasked with recommending implementing the BGC's recommendations (which 
are at the highest level surely)-which deal with participation. 

 

Participation is governed by the charters.  Our work goes directly to the 
charters. 

 

We must resolve this debate. As I said -if there is a carve out -we must 
identify it/agree what it is. 

 

 

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: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 21 April 2009 21:30
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 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

 

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 

        

         

        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