Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Who was mainly responsible for drafting Subtask 4's toolkit?






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: "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:24:44 
To: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 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

 

Further to the points of procedure, these are my substantive comments to
the 1.4 draft. 


1.The BGC Report contemplates that the purpose of the ToolKit should
include assistance with Standardization (at p. 44) and outreach (same)
and also to make Constituency documents more broadly accessible to the
global community (same) (emphasis added). That is, it should provide for
the funding of our other recommendations -particularly as to the common
rules on participation and operating procedures--once the implementation
proposals had been agreed by this group. That is the Toolkit is the
means to fund our recommended improvements.  In these circumstances, it
is clearly premature to agree the funding before the improvements are
agreed. 


2. For example, there has been opposition to the proposed operational
requirement that Constituencies and Interested Parties must post minutes
within either 24 or 72 hours or one week on the basis that this would be
too onerous -while at the same time the Toolkit contemplates that Staff
would be able to relieve this burden from Constituencies and Interested
Parties and expressly agrees funds for the posting and preparation of
minutes. Similarly as to the arrangements for MP3 recordings of
meetings--- no party has expressed any support for Constituencies or
Interested Parties to have to post recordings of meetings so it is
surprising to find this in the Toolkit. 


3. The BGC Report makes no reference to the ToolKit being applicable to
Stakeholder Groups. It refers to Constituencies -and while we must
extend it to their counterpart in the Contracted Houses-Interested
Parties, the draft makes the bare statement that the ToolKit should
apply to GNSO Organizational Groups. No case is made for the need for
these resources to apply at Stakeholder Groups level. What is the basis
for this recommendation? Further the report contemplates its extension
to other eligible groups ---but gives no information on who they might
be? Who are these other eligible groups?   


Agreeing the funds for the action -without agreement on the action,
surely places the cart before the proverbial horse.  


Regards, 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 27 September 2009 14:28
To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
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 

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: 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 

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: 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 

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: 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 

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: 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



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4461 (20090927)__________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com