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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Victoria,
do you have a specific proposal on how to proceed?
Perhaps you can share it with us in the list and have a previous discussion
before Friday´s call in order to use our time more efficiently.
Best
Olga

2009/4/21 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 *
>
> [image: 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:* 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 *
>
> [image: 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 *
>
> [image: 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 *
>
> [image: 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
> i*nput 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
>
>
>
>
>
>