[gnso-osc-csg] 5 June 13 GMT revised agenda

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
in reviewing our mailing list and some feedback from staff and ourselves, I
want to propose some changes to our agenda for today´s conference call:

1- Check with Gisella results of the Doodle, face to face meeting in Sydney.
2- SS request of clarification about staff support
3- Project plans revision: goals achieved, what is missing, next steps.
(Draft toolkit feedback request Form)
4- Best and bad practices: already recieved information,next steps.
5- Additional criteria for reviewing the existing information: exchange of
ideas.
6- Any other business.

Feel free to make changes / additions if needed.

Talk to you soon.
Regards
Olga




2009/6/2 SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>

> This is of particular attention to Chair and staff and also WT.
> *Subject--                staff support.  Ref.  Victoria's mail as below.*
> **Appologise for being late as I was busy elswhere.
>
> 1. Robert is right not to part with private and confidential information.
> BUT,
> Its Staff's bounden duty to support WT and provide it useful information to
> help it in its work.
> I see that Staff's communication to Board would have had three elements:
> Analysis, Recommendations, Cover Letter.
> Last two are confidential and not Analysis.
> If Staff still feels that Analysis submitted to Board is confidential, then
> please do it again for the WT (and that should be very easy). Or,
> Change it suitably that it is suitable for WT work.
>
> 2. I fully agree with Victoria that all efforts should be compiled
> together.
>
> SS
> --
>
>
>
>   *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 *
>
> [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.
>
>
>
> *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-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
> *
>
> 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<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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.
>
>
>
>
>