[gnso-osc-csg] Draft of letter from the COT to the OSC

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone,

 

As discussed here is a simple letter raising the concerns of timing and
compliance with COT recommendations to the OSC.

 

Please review and add your edits or comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: May-22-09 4:26 AM
To: Robert Hoggarth
Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; Denise Michel
Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Request for Information on Letter from GNSO to
Board

 

Robert -thank you. I agree with what you say about the dark side of
transparency. That was very helpful -and accessible. Much appreciated.  

 

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: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 22 May 2009 05:22
To: Victoria McEvedy
Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; Denise Michel
Subject: Re: Request for Information on Letter from GNSO to Board

 

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!  J 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-implemen
tation-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 


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: OSC_letter.docx
Description: Microsoft Office