<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- To: "SS Kshatriy" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>, <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-osc-csg" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:28:16 -0400
SS,
We have tried very hard to get good representation from the SGs and
constituences because we want and need their input to this process.
They are the ones who will have to approve our recommendations and live
by them so we cannot do a good job without their input.
Chuck
________________________________
From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Victoria
McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg; zahid@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4:
Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
Dear Zahid,
You have been realy out of loop and now have only selective information.
There was lenghty discussions on Fri 25 and appreciate fully and be able
to make a 'proper' frame of mind, you have to read MP 3 recordings in
full.
--
One of the members (I could not identify him and so can't give his name)
said that, "we receive lots of papers in Constituencies and it is
difficult to review in peicemeal." He was refering to the all subtasks 1
to 4 being submitted. But he was prepared to review Subtask 4 if
submitted peicemeal.
Is it not strange and funny.
So to say, in that meeting, lots of strange and funny arguments were put
in favour of pushing Subtask 4 through.
So, please read and grasp the full text and then make some comments.
regards,
SS
--- On Sun, 9/27/09, Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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>
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 8:06 AM
I think that's a good suggestion, especially keeping in mind how
many things are currently being handled by the various teams/groups and
the council. If we don't adopt this where possible it may just stall and
inordinately delay processes.
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(r) wireless device
________________________________
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:44:31 -0400
To: <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>; <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
Excellent question Zahid. I requested the following: if the
recommendations for subtask 1.4 (Toolkit of Services for Constituencies
and Stakeholder Groups) is approved with at least rough consensus by the
WT, then we should send it forward to the OSC and ultimately to the
Council ahead of other parts of our work that are not yet finished so
that the toolkit could be implemented as soon as possible and
constituencies and SGs could then benefit sooner from the services they
elect to use.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:35 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Victoria
McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask
4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
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(r) wireless device
________________________________
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:27:32 -0400
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
<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
<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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://www.eset.com/>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|