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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICANN is privately funded mostly (over 90%) by registry and registrar
fees that ultimately come from domain name registrants with smaller
portions coming from ccTLD operators the ASO and a few other sources.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
        Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:24 AM
        To: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Follow up to SS 
        
        

        Just wondering which Freedom of Information Act applies to ICANN
-does anyone know? Isn't it publically funded? 

         

         

        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: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
        Sent: 22 May 2009 15:09
        To: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; Robert Hoggarth
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Follow up to SS 

         

        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.