[gnso-osc-csg] Re: Request for Information on Letter from GNSO to Board

[Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello, Victoria.

Thank you for your email, and your voice mail.

Rob is following-up on your requests.  Please bear with us as Policy Staff
currently is supporting 18 different GNSO-related entities (working groups,
teams, etc) with numerous members, as well as a significant amount of
substantive initiatives.  We're processing individual requests for
information as quickly as possible.

BTW, all key documents related to GNSO Improvements are linked at <
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/> and discussed on the GNSO Council
list at <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/>.

Regards,
Denise

Denise Michel
ICANN Vice President
Policy Development
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
+1.408.429.3072 mobile
+1.310.578.8632 direct


On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Robert,
>
>
>
> Forgive me for troubling you further, as I was reading the background
> materials I came across the following letter from the GNSO Council to the
> Board—seeking clarification on the respective roles of the Staff and the
> GNSO in the improvements process.
>
>
>
>
> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/gnso_transition/attachments/reports_to_gnso_council_and_the_icann_board:20080326133934-0-1546/original/Letter%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Improvements%2018%20March%202008.pdf
>
>
>
> This very much raises the issues I asked you about in our meeting on April
> 24. Could you please advise what followed and/or the whereabouts of any
> response (in any form) from the Board to the letter above? I am copying in
> Denise here as she co-wrote that letter.
>
>
>
> I would also be grateful for any information as to/and or a copy of the
> draft Implementation notes prepared by the Staff referred to in the
> penultimate para of this letter.  The letter says that the notes are to be
> shared with the community for consideration and discussion. If there are no
> notes, please advise.
>
>
>
> We have the Staff analysis of the Public Comments only. We don’t have the
> Staff analysis of the Constituency Submissions or the identification of
> changes that the Board has directed or the records of liaison between the
> Constituencies and the Staff or the Staff and the Board. If there are none,
> please advise. I did ask for this on April 24th.
>
>
>
> It is very frustrating working in the dark here and not having the context.
>
>
>
>
> I note also in relation to my earlier request today as to the timing of the
> GNSO Improvements in light of the June 2009 dates, that per the Top Level
> Implementation Plan, 11 September 2008, Prepared by the GNSO Improvements
> Planning Team, third DRAFT version of 16 October 2008 says at pg.8: “Neither
> Steering Committee is intended to be a permanent entity.  Their respective
> charters will expire on 30 June 2009, unless specifically renewed by the
> GNSO council.”
>
>
>
> I do think we need the timing information overview in order to be able to
> determine how to deal with the little time remaining and the imminent
> termination of our Charter.
>
>
>
> If you are the wrong Staff person to direct these questions to –please
> advise who this should be addressed to.
>
>
>
> Given the shortness of time and the Board meeting this week –I would very
> much appreciate a prompt reply.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>