RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

While overall impressions are what they are, I think we will make most
progress if objections and arguments are factually based. 

Tony --perhaps you can provide evidence and facts demonstrating the
current level of transparency in your constituency and why you think it
sufficient and meets basic transparency. 

Claudio --perhaps you can identify the particular proposals that you
object to.


Thanks 

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. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 11 September 2009 00:35
To: Victoria McEvedy; Anthony Harris; OSC-CSG Work Team
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

All,

I have been out of office so have not had a chance to review this
extensively, but at first glance it appears most, if not all, of my
concerns remain.

On style, I find the tone still quite negative. In particular, I do not
support admonishing constituencies or SGs in this report, even on a
generalized level. That specific SGs have been singled-out on issues I
think is incendiary and unnecessary. More importantly, I do not believe
the assertions are supported by the facts in these areas.

In sum, i read these recommendations to require all GNSO groups on
almost every important element regarding how a group might function,
organize, and represent its stakeholders - to all do so in the same
manner & under the same procedures and format. To me, that is the
antithesis of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder model.

Certainly there are topics and rules where commonality across the groups
is beneficial, and we received specific recommendations to implement
from the BGC. But I think these areas of commonality are limited in
scope, and while we strive to develop further recommendations, we should
keep in mind the diversity of the GNSO while doing so. Forcing diverse
groups serving different interests to all follow the same rules and
procedures on virtually all matters would cause much more harm than good
in my view.

Can share more particulars tomorrow.

Claudio

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of victoria@xxxxxxxxxx [victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 5:27 PM
To: Anthony Harris; OSC-CSG Work Team
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

Tony ---I have been a member of two constituencies so I am speaking from
experience. Further the BGC, the LES and the other reviewers all
expressed the view that there was a lack of basic transparency. Let's
try to keep the tone impersonal and professional. I think it will be
more constructive. Regards, Victoria

Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device

________________________________
From: "Anthony Harris"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:38:19 +0100
To: Victoria McEvedy<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; OSC-CSG Work
Team<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

I attach some comments to this "final report".

I will try and be on at least the first 30 minutes of
tomorrow's call. Just in case, my comments are
on record in the attached document (in blue text).
I continue to be uncomfortable with the tone of
this report, which still conveys a categorization
of the Constituencies as being some sort of
secret societies, that speak in whispers and
conspire in the dark. I would have preferred a
more objective approach, that takes into account
the efforts that constituencies have been making
over the last 11 years, for very little thanks as it
would appear.

Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria McEvedy<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: OSC-CSG Work Team<mailto:gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Olga Cavalli<mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Julie
Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

Please find attached the final report for Subtask 1.2.

Regards,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:A2DBF1370BDE43688C530F77BFEA9105@harrys]

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<http://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 SS Kshatriy
Sent: 09 September 2009 23:38
To: OSC-CSG Work Team
Cc: Olga Cavalli
Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Draft 2- Subtask 1- SS

Hi Everybody,
I have attached Draft 2 Subtask 1. this is improvement on Draft 1
earlier circulated and and suitably incorporates inputs from Chuck and
Victoria..

best regards,

SS




__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4411 (20090909)__________


The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4412 (20090909)__________


The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4414 (20090910)__________


The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4414 (20090910) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4415 (20090910)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4415 (20090910) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4415 (20090910) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com