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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

SS please cease from referring to a member of the work team in the third person 
with a completely unsuccessful effort at anonymity.  If you disagree with 
someone’s argument you are welcome to say so and cite your reasons,  however 
referring to individuals positions as ” lots of strange and funny arguments” 
and not responding to those individuals directly is not acceptable.

   

Lets all remember that even if we disagree heavily at times, respectful 
language and behaviour  is not only desirable on both this list and in our 
meetings, it’s mandatory.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: September-27-09 11:53 PM
To: ChuckGomes; 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® 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® 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 

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_charter> 
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 

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/> 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