[gnso-osc-csg] House Keeping request

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A house-keeping request for our list:  Often viable discussion threads evolve 
from an initial email and produce good discussion, however the subject title of 
that thread becomes woefully inaccurate.  I would ask when the subject of the 
thread changes, could everyone please modify/update the subject line at that 
time?  When trying reread old emails or find a past discussion thread those 
updated subject lines make it much easier to find what you may be looking for.

 

Thanks much.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: April-23-09 3:42 AM
To: Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Glen de Saint Géry; 
Rob Hoggarth
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff 
Support--Agenda

 


Dear Olga,

I will request 'Staff Support' to be included as an Agenda item.

I want to understand what should be asked from staff and what not.

--

Also, I will request WT members not to loose the essence of an issue while 
making comments.

I will request to read my mail on Staff Support and comment keeping meaning of 
my request in mind.

 

regards,

SS 

   

--- On Wed, 4/22/09, Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Next steps and conference call- Staff Support--lost
To: "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx, 
jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx, "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Glen de 
Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rob Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 12:01 PM

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 
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