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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Julie,
regards
Olga

2009/4/22 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 *
>> [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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>