<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-osc-csg" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:34:46 +0000
Apologies for being out of the loop. Could someone identify bifurcation of
which specific issue is being discussed?
Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and
constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil &
Jamil is prohibited.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:27:32
To: Victoria McEvedy<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; Julie
Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit
Recommendations
Thanks for the feedback Victoria. Hope your weekend has gone well.
Please note a few responses below.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 8:20 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4:
Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
I will revert tomorrow with substantive comments on the 1.4
Draft -which I have not reviewed.
However, in terms of process:
1. On the call on 25 September 2009, a previously determined
issue (whether to bifurcate our work and put forward some
recommendations before others) was re-opened. If matters are to be
re-opened -I think proper advance notice should be a minimum.
[Gomes, Chuck] Please specifically identify the issue.
2. The issue of bifurcation was discussed in depth and the whole
group unanimously decided against it on 21 August 09-see Transcript.
[Gomes, Chuck] Bifurcation is a terribly broad term that can be
applied in a multitude of ways. My recollection is that we applied it
to a specific situation. It appears that you believe that the WT made a
unanimous decision to never "bifurcate" in the broadest sense of the
term. I do not think that was the case. Merriam Webster defines "to
bifurcate" as "to divide into two branches or parts". So if what you
are saying is correct, i.e., that we decided to never divide our work
into parts, then I guess we should have never divided our work into two
major tasks and we should never have divided task 1 into 4 subtasks. I
request that the full WT be polled regarding whether they agree with the
following statement: "The work team should never divide its work into
parts." It should be possible to do this on the list but at the latest
it should be done in our next meeting.
3. This item was not on the Agenda for re-opening on 25
September. I don't even seem to have an Agenda for the call.
[Gomes, Chuck] In one of our calls a few weeks ago, you noted
that it was ashamed that we spent so much time on process issues early
in our work. I agree. But interestingly, you have been the primary
cause of most of the process delays and now you are doing it again.
4. I joined the call late ---as did many others---and was not
aware that the topic was being re-opened. I didn't hear much of the
discussion on the topic -only catching the very end of it and without
preparation to discuss it.
[Gomes, Chuck] Please note the following message that I sent to
the WT list on 22 Sep: "Thanks for the reminder Olga. I would also like
to point out that Julie sent draft recommendations to the full WT for
review and comment. It would be helpful if we could wrap that up in the
next week or so. In my opinion, it would be very helpful if we could
send our final recommendations regarding a services toolkit to the OSC
and on to the Council ASAP because I believe that the new SGs as well as
constituencies, WGs, etc. could benefit a lot from this task moving
forward as soon as possible." Also note that Julie first sent the
subtask 1.4 proposed final report on 11 Sep after input had been
requested from the full WT and after Claudio had provided some
constructive input.
5. Where a number of members have not and had not finally
reviewed the relevant Subtask Work at the time and neither its final
approval nor the bifurcation was on the Agenda--- in these
circumstances, the re-opening of the issue was not conducted fairly.
[Gomes, Chuck] Unless you believe that we should not divide any
of our work into parts, I request that we cease talking about
bifurcation in the broad, general sense and only talk about it as it
relates to a specific issue.
6. Further and more importantly a call for any kind of poll
was premature.
[Gomes, Chuck] Why? Most people on the call were prepared and
additional time was allowed for those who were not. If we are overly
rigid about process, I suppose we could drag our work out months longer
than necessary. I for one, do not support that.
7. It remains premature given comments are still to come -and
with them there must be a requirement to try to reach a consensus on
points.
[Gomes, Chuck] We are trying to reach consensus. What do you
think all of this is about? It seems unlikely that we will reach
unanimous consensus so the next goal will be to reach rough consensus.
We could determine that by early next week.
Best,
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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 September 2009 21:17
To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4:
Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
Victoria,
You emphatically stated that you disagreed with what I said. I
still would like to know which statement you disagreed with and why. I
am quite certain it was not this one: "We did not reach unanimous
consensus." So it must be this one: "It remains to be seen whether
there is rough consensus." What do you disagree with?
The 'OSC Communications Work Team Charter' can be found here:
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_work_team_ch
arter. See Section III, Work Team Rules.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:21 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask
4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
Chuck --- Please point to the procedure you cite so we
can see the actual language. This is part of the very issue before us.
Where are the rules?
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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 September 2009 20:18
To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask
4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
What do you disagree with Victoria? I made two
statements. Which one is wrong and why?
Chuck
________________________________
From: Victoria McEvedy
[mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:45 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1,
Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
I disagree Chuck.
It was clearly called as a failure to reach
rough consensus.
My understanding is that happens in a meeting
-and is not a process that goes out to a group unless by formal vote.
Please point to the procedure you cite so we can
see the actual language and let's wait for the recording and see where
we are then.
I would also like to review our earlier
discussion on splitting the work in the earlier meetings.
Best,
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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 September 2009 19:40
To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund;
gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1,
Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
We did not reach unanimous consensus. It remains
to be seen whether there is rough consensus.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:11 PM
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM:
Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
Thanks Julie I will be reverting with
comments on Monday.
We already dealt with (3) on the call
and failed to reach a rough consensus as I understood it?
Best,
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 Julie Hedlund
Sent: 25 September 2009 16:36
To: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM:
Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
Dear Work Team members,
On today's call we discussed the final
draft of the Tool Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Organizations
(Draft 3 11 Sept 09), which incorporates changes suggested by Claudio.
On the call we decided to circulate this final draft to allow time for
those who have not already done so to comment on the document. The Work
Team is asking for a response from you, no later than Tuesday, 29
September, on the following:
1. Any suggested changes to Draft 3
of the Tool Kit Services Recommendations
2. If no suggested changes, please
affirm that you agree with the final draft version of the
Recommendations
3. Please indicate whether these
Recommendations should be provided a) to the OSC as soon as they are
agreed to by the Work Team; b) along with Recommendations for the other
Subtasks; or c) please let us know if you have suggestions for another
way to handle these Recommendations.
Also, those of you who were at the
meeting please feel free to add comments or clarifications to my summary
of this action item from our meeting. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Julie
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4457 (20090925)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32
Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32
Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925)__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925)__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4458 (20090925)__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4461 (20090927)__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|