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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One of the main purposes of having representatives from every constituency on 
the CSG WT is to provide an ongoing channel of communication between the WT and 
the constituencies.  Those representatives should be the primary avenue used to 
get input from constituencies.  In many cases, the reps will be able to provide 
needed information without going back to their constituencies; in other cases, 
they may have to seek direct input on specific issues raised by the WT.  Let's 
not put unreasonable expectations on Staff.
 
SS - Staff doesn't need to make information available if it is already publicly 
available; I suspect you are simply asking them to provide pointers to the 
information.  Asking them to do a comparison by constituency of various 
elements of constituency charters may be useful but it will take considerable 
time and we should provide more direction in terms of what is desired. Also, it 
will not work if every member of the WT requests tasks from Staff; those 
requests need to be agreed to by the WT as a whole and communicated by the 
chair or alternate chair in the absence of the chair.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
        Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:37 AM
        To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team; Glen de Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support--lost
        
        
Dear Julie,
I will differ from you on this subject.
What I mean was that Staff should make available the information that is 
publically available, in the form I asked for. Constituency representatives 
will come into play only when some additional information is sought.
 
best,
SS

--- On Tue, 4/21/09, Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


        From: Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support--lost
        To: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Glen de Saint Géry" 
<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rob Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 6:14 PM
        
        
         
        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