<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- To: <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>, <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>, <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-osc-csg@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 15:10:21 -0400
Julie and I, subgroup for task 1.4, based predominantly on a survey done be
ICANN staff.
Chuck
Chuck Gomes
________________________________
From: Zahid Jamil
To: Victoria McEvedy ; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx ; Gomes, Chuck; Julie
Hedlund ; gnso-osc-csg
Sent: Mon Sep 28 14:43:05 2009
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit
Recommendations
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
________________________________
From: "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:24:44 +0100
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
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
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_charter.
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
__________ 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 4465 (20090928)__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|