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

["Julie Hedlund" <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear S.S.,

I apologize for not responding sooner to your request concerning staff support, 
but I have been in meetings all day and was unable to respond until now.

I would like to suggest that we discuss the issue of staff support during 
Friday's call in relation to the following agenda item:

"How to exchange information about constituencies in relations to subtasks"

The reason for my suggestion is that I think it could be helpful to learn from 
the Work Team members who represent constituencies how best to exchange 
information concerning their constituencies' current practices relating to each 
of the subtasks, that is: "participation rules, operating principles, and 
database of members."  I suggest that this information exchange would 
facilitate input from a broad range of constituencies as the Work Team develops 
its recommendations for each subtask, and.help ICANN staff in meeting requests 
for staff support for each subtask in a more efficient manner, 

Thank you very much,

Julie
  -----Original Message-----
  From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:22 PM
  To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
  Cc: Michael Young; Gomes, Chuck; OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; Glen de 
Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
  Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support--lost


        Dear Olga,
        My request for Staff Support got lost in the discussions.
        SS

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

          From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support
          To: "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
          Cc: "Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx, "OSC-CSG Work Team" 
<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Glen de 
Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rob Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
          Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 4:48 PM


          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 


            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