[gnso-osc-csg] RE: Follow up to SS

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

SS -I do apologize for talking too fast.  The points I was making were: 

 

1.   Insofar as you were asking for work product/analysis already
prepared by Staff for the Board -Robert explained below in red that we
are not entitled to these.  

 

 

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. 



2.    My second point was just a suggestion that we should perhaps
combine all the points and analysis and inputs so far into one master
table -including Julie's draft, my edits to that (attached again), your
analysis of the two criteria and Chuck's comments -as well as
Constituency comments as they come in.  

 

Best 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: 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-imple
mentation-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/Lett
er%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: FinalAmendedGNSO OSC-CSG WT Task 1 Constituency Analysis V3-1.doc
Description: FinalAmendedGNSO OSC-CSG WT Task 1 Constituency Analysis V3-1.doc