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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I agree with Chuck in relation with:

"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."

Victoria, in relation with your email (attached as follows), could you
please clarify it to me? I find difficulties in understanding your point.

I suggest also that in relation with the discussions that we are having on
the list, please let me know if you want to add specific points to the
agenda which are not included in the present version.

Best regards
Olga


2009/4/22 Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>

>
>
> As to the on-going channel, I will put a marker down on this one. I think
> we need to discuss. The constituency leaders already submitted their views
> in detail in the questionnaire.  We can solicit further information if need
> be –but it should be a pull (not push) effect and on precise and limited
> issues –otherwise our work would be replaced by a process of negotiation
> between the constituencies. I did not understand our function as to provide
> a forum for that –but rather to be a cross party team (including
> individuals) working together in a bi-partisan fashion to come up with some
> new recommendations for the new models.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* 22 April 2009 14:34
> *To:* sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; 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
>
>
>
> 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 *
>
> [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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>