<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- 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
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:25:33 -0400
Please see my responses below.
Olga - It is clear that we are not going to reach unanimous consensus on
the issue of submitting the tool kit of services recommendations.
Because the charter does not require unanimity, I request that we
determine whether there is rough consensus for doing so. If so, those
who disagree may submit a minority opinion as the charter specified. If
not, we can put this idea to rest.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:25 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
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.
[Gomes, Chuck] If the toolkit of services is already implemented
when other recommendations are implemented then those other
recommendations will be able to be implemented that much faster.
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.
[Gomes, Chuck] The toolkit service is simply assistance with
minutes. It is independent of any policy that might be approved.
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?
[Gomes, Chuck] The report addressed this. SGs did not exist
when the BGC recommendations were developed. The intent is the same.
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_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
__________ 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
- References:
- [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
- RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|