RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Victoria's Apprehension

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that the ccing idea is a great one and I'd be very happy to do a draft 
for circulation before our meeting. 

 

 

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: 22 April 2009 15:04
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Victoria McEvedy; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; 'Olga Cavalli'
Cc: 'OSC-CSG Work Team'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Glen de Saint Géry'; 'Rob Hoggarth'
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Victoria's 
Apprehension

 

This is a better and more incremental suggestion than mine, as I am also trying 
to grasp where we could get blocked from completing our tasks.

 

Michael

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: April-22-09 9:46 AM
To: Michael Young; Victoria McEvedy; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli
Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team; Julie Hedlund; Glen de Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Victoria's 
Apprehension

 

What would help me is some specific examples where our work may be impeded so 
that we get past a theoretical level and can look at specific cases.  I think 
that would help us get on the same page and I believe that should precede 
drafting a letter.

 

Chuck

         

________________________________

        From: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:42 AM
        To: 'Victoria McEvedy'; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; 'Olga Cavalli'
        Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'OSC-CSG Work Team'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Glen de Saint 
Géry'; 'Rob Hoggarth'
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Victoria's 
Apprehension

        How about dealing with this a stepped fashion? We could raise the 
concerns formally with the OSC and cc the letter/comment to the Board.  I 
believe we should give the OSC a first opportunity to address this rather 
perhaps giving the impression we are bypassing them.  If we feel our work is 
impeded after that point, we can then address the Board directly.

         

        Victoria it would help me (and I suspect others) if you could perhaps 
draft a proposed letter/comment for submission prior to Friday's meeting.  This 
letter would frame your concern and describe its scope (at least for me).  I 
want to make sure I fully understand your concern, (and forgive me if I am 
paraphrasing this wrong), that allowing charter approvals will impede our own 
work objectives.  

         

        Best Regards,

         

        Michael Young

         

        Vice-President,

        Product Development

        Afilias

        O: +14166734109

        C: +16472891220

         

        From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: April-22-09 3:01 AM
        To: sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; 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- Victoria's 
Apprehension

         

         

        My own suggestion would be that we the COT WT write formally to the 
Board and the OSC and ask for clarification.  

         

        From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 22 April 2009 01:21
        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- Victoria's 
Apprehension

         

Hi Everybody,

Victoria made a very valid point in- 

"I'm sure none of us --who are volunteering our time --want to make 
recommendations that are too late to have any impact. "

 

Chuck made very good observations but some of it may not be very clear.

 

I will suggest a way out. Olga may convey WT's apprehensions to OSC in next 
routine communication. WT may continue its work as best as understood by all.

 

SS

--

(I have an example where a Committee worked very hard for 6 months, collected 
lots of information, and produced a very elaborate document. All that became 
useless simply because Staff representative remained silent and board never 
knew what was happening) 

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