<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff Support--lost
- To: "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff Support--lost
- From: "Claudio Di Gangi" <CDiGangi@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:14:15 -0400
I agree with SS and Chuck on these points.
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Victoria McEvedy
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work
Team; Glen de Saint Géry; Rob Hoggarth
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff Support--lost
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
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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|