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

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Victoria:

Thanks for your follow-up note. Sorry for the delayed reply - only so much 
bandwidth available during some weeks. I will try to address each of your items 
in turn.  I have tried to organized this note in question and answer format 
with each of your questions quoted from your note in bold text immediately 
followed by an answer in regular text format. As Chuck knows,  I am not a fan 
of this type of layout, but it seemed the best way to respond in this instance.

Question 1 - The March 2008 Memo:

"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."

Answer 1:

You are sure challenging my memory!  :) At its February 2008 Meeting, the ICANN 
Board passed the following resolution:

Resolved (2008.02.15.03), the ICANN Board directs staff to open a public 
comment forum for 30 days on the GNSO Improvements Report, draft a detailed 
implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the 
non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for 
further consideration of the implementation plan.

Several weeks after the March memo, I think the Staff and the GNSO community 
expected the GNSO Improvements process to move much more quickly. As the memo 
outlines, a Council-led working group was formed to investigate a number of 
approaches to planning the implementation process. The germ of those ideas and 
concepts ultimately produced the present-day steering committee and work team 
structures.  I say "ultimately" because it turned out that during that period 
in early '08 just about every improvements issue was "contentious." It wasn't 
until about six months later that most of the GNSO Council restructure issues 
were largely resolved. Chuck was a founding member of that working group and 
can probably offer additional insights. I am trying to research the email 
archive for that group and will pass on the web site location of the archives 
when I locate the correct link.

In March 2008, the Policy Staff had begun to work on draft implementation 
notes, but given the delays caused by the Council restructuring debate, that 
effort morphed into the production of draft work team charters. The work 
product of those efforts resulted in the original work team charters produced 
on each of the WIKI sites.  At the time, this work team was referred to as the 
"GNSO Constituency Enhancements Team." I have attached a copy of an early draft 
of that effort for your edification. The most interesting/potentially useful 
part of the draft document is the appendiz section, but most of that tracks to 
materials you've already seen.  One final note, the Board did not respond 
directly to the memo.

Query 2:

"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."

Answer 2:

In addition to the Staff analysis of the public comments, Julie produced a 
separate analysis document to this work team on April 30 that summarized 
Staff's assessment of the various constituency charter documents. The only area 
that I did not see in the document was the suggestion that came out of the 
public comments that constituencies be required to produce financial 
data/records. That is an interesting idea that this group should explore.  
Happy to share my views on that with you at the appropriate time in your 
deliberations.
There were a couple of informal and preliminary Staff-Constituency discussions 
about the constituency reconfirmation process but nothing in the formal record 
because that part of the process was quickly moved to the "back-burner" as the 
debate about stakeholder group charters grabbed the Board's attention.  The 
Staff is also asked from time to time to prepare briefing and recommendations 
for the Board but those documents are private and confidential; Staff is not 
permitted to circulate any of those materials.
Based on the note that Julie circulated this evening from Denise, it now 
appears that there will be some specific/detailed Board guidance available for 
us all to discuss at this point next week.

Query 3:

"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."

Answer 3:

The FINAL version of the GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan 
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implementation-plan-16oct08.pdf)
 (see - http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ipt-en.htm at page 6 clearly 
states that:

"Neither Steering Committee is intended to be a permanent entity. Their 
respective charters will expire at the ICANN annual meeting in 2009, unless 
specifically renewed by the GNSO Council by at least a sixty (60%) vote of both 
houses in the recently approved GNSO Council voting system."

The annual ICANN meeting this year will take place in Seoul, South Korea - 
October 25-30.  As far as I am aware, the work team charter is not about to 
expire.  If implementation work still needs to be done in October, I'm sure the 
Council will extend the charters in Seoul.  The purpose of the sunset 
provisions was simply to ensure that the structures didn't become permanent 
standing committees. Chuck could also provide some additional insight on this 
issue.


Finally, I am struggling with your comment about feeling like you are working 
in the dark. I appreciate your interest in getting together as many details as 
possible.  The "dark" side of transparency is that so many documents end up 
being available and linked that there can be information overload.  Moreover, 
this process has been anything but clean and neat, and there is still 
significant effort that must still be made to achieve final implementation of 
the improvements effort.  Staff is devoting considerable effort and resources 
to offer all the committees and work teams as much resources as possible to 
help them work effectively.  I'm sorry that we have yet to meet your standards 
but we will continue to strive to do so.

Please be assured that this work team's recommendations will have significant 
weight and influence in the community and the potential to govern the 
operations of stakeholder groups and constituencies for a significant time to 
come.  While there are likely to be continuing debates about the overall 
structure of the GNSO and the roles of various players in that framework, this 
team's job is to focus on the specific details and ground rules that can only 
be practically developed from the bottom up.  You should look for guidance as 
you are doing but also not feel constrained or limited in your concepts and 
ideas.  This should be an exercise in brainstorming and considering or trying 
out new possibilities (a concept that SS has seemed to embrace in several of 
his comments).

One final note.  I have been scheduled for a conflicting call tomorrow morning 
so I won't initially be on the work team call - I hope that I'll be able to 
join before it concludes. I noted above that Julie has passed on the message 
Denise shared with the community earlier today.  Since the SIC expects to 
circulate some revised document materials early next week, I'll be sure to lock 
in next week's call and you all may wish to consider time on that call agenda 
to specifically discuss the implications, if any, of that development on the 
work team efforts.

Thank you very much for your engagement in this effort.  I sincerely appreciate 
your interest in and commitment.

Best regards,

Rob Hoggarth



On 5/21/09 3:52 PM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Denise. Not wanting to add to the pressure -an ETA would be fine. Thanks.


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3325796548_46388723]

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: michel.denise@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:michel.denise@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Denise Michel
Sent: 21 May 2009 20:45
To: Victoria McEvedy
Cc: Rob Hoggarth; gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Request for Information on Letter from GNSO to Board

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

Error! Filename not specified.



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.

Attachment: GNSO CONSTITUENCY ENHANCEMENT TEMPLATE 0.99 .doc
Description: GNSO CONSTITUENCY ENHANCEMENT TEMPLATE 0.99 .doc