<<<
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: "Julie Hedlund" <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:41:47 -0400
All,
Thank you for all your helpful comments!
As Chuck noted, while staff can direct the Work Team members to publicly
available information, I was suggesting that it would be more useful for staff
to get more direction from all Work Team members in order to produce a
synthesis of available information (such as in a table, as S.S. noted) that is
targeted to the requirements of each subtask, but which also is not duplicative
of existing sources of information -- such as the GNSO Constituency Survey
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-constituency-survey-report-28jan09-en.pdf.
. Thus, I think it would be helpful if we could consider Chuck's suggestion
for staff support requests to be agreed by the Work Team as a whole. In
addition, once we have exhausted publicly available sources of information, we
may need to turn to our constituency representatives on the Work Team to access
information that may not be publicly available.
With a bit more direction on the specific scope of our work for the team I
suggest that we will be able to assist all of you in a more efficient manner.
Best,
Julie
-----Original Message-----
From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@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
>>>
|