[gnso-osc-csg] RE: Subtask 1-Chuck's comments

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear WT,

Here are some comments I had on Victoria's points below.

Claudio

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:08 AM
To: SS Kshatriy; Claudio Di Gangi; rafik dammak
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: Subtask 1-Chuck's comments

These are my summary comments to Chuck's points on SS's draft.


1.    Generally --- the status quo and the interim approval of transitional and 
bare minimum charters for the current Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups 
---is not a compelling answer given that they are transitional. Staff have made 
clear they have made the bare minimum of comments and that our work as a cross 
constituency group is to follow. [Chuck I do not understand what other possible 
meaning cross constituency can have -please explain]. I did not believe the 
Stakeholder Group charters approved by the Board were considered transitional 
documents.



2.    The scheme of the report on Substask 1.2 deals firstly with 
Constituencies and then suggests a re-think as to which recommendations might 
also be suggested as applicable for Stakeholder Groups. The two are not the 
same and very different concerns may apply. To deal with them together is as 
apples and oranges.



The recommendations should apply equally at the level of participation in the 
GNSO. In the Contracted Party House, participation is at the Stakeholder Group 
level, and in the Non-Contracted Party House, participation is on the 
Constituency level. Therefore, our recommendations would apply equally to 
Stakeholder Groups in the Contracted Party House & Constituencies in the 
Non-Contracted Party House.




3.    If in the Contracted Houses any interested parties do ever form and 
charter themselves -then they might be a more appropriate comparator but as of 
yet there are none and personally, I doubt there ever will be.
Please see comment above. There is no requirement that subgroups form in the 
Contracted Party House for our recommendations to apply there.



4.    For these reasons the treatment of individuals in the Contracted Houses' 
interested parties groups is not helpful and prevents these important issues 
being dealt with in the Constituencies -which do actually exist and -let us not 
forget, retain all real power by virtue of their retained control of the non 
Contracted GNSO seats.



Please see above comment. Our recommendations should apply equally across all 
GROUPs.



5.    As to voting by size or revenue ---if the UN did this China would have 
half the votes -instead each member state has one vote.



Groups should have the flexibility to allow for different forms and types of 
members (individuals, organizations, companies) in order to determine how it 
can best represent its community.



6.    Organizational members should exercise the number of votes of their 
constituent members and that would preserve fairness.



Please see comment above.



7.    In fact there is not intended to be any discrimination against 
individuals and the Bylaws treat individuals and entities as interchangeable 
-see Art. X 3 "any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for 
recognition as a new or separate Constituency." Note the document "Critical New 
Stakeholder Group Principles " -and see BGC Report at p.32 ---all Stakeholder 
groups expected to conduct greater outreach and recruit a broader and more 
diverse membership. BGC report at 39 ---the goal is that they be as inclusive 
and representative as possible and Constituency structure needs to adapt.



Please see above comment.



8.    As a matter of law -the corporate form (as opposed to a sole trader or 
partnership or a limited liability partnership) is not usually a requirement 
for any particular legal rights.  I would be very surprised if California law 
differed in that respect and do not see why these structures could apply to be 
a Registrar or a Registry and then join an interested party. If they cannot 
-then that restriction should be revised.

Please see above comment. For example, in the Commercial Stakeholder Group, 
GROUPs could choose to limit membership to formal legal entities like 
corporations, limited liability partnerships, etc.



9.    An independent and comprehensive review of internet governance entities 
(ITU, IETF, ISOC, ICANN, WC3 etc etc) and participation was conducted for the 
Council of Europe -see 
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/Public_participation_internet_governance/Internet_Governance_Report_Souter_May09.pdf.
  Note that few of the organizations discriminate against full participation 
for individuals -particularly in policy making.



Individuals are represented in several organs of ICANN, including now in the 
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.



10. We need more information on the current position as to duplication of 
members in existing Constituencies. The crossover between the Business and IPC 
Constituencies may be very extensive and it would help to have further 
information as to that and other examples and also understand how subsidiaries 
and related companies and duplicate voting is now dealt with.


Best,






Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CA436E.9EBCD740]

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: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 September 2009 17:29
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; rafik dammak
Cc: Olga Cavalli
Subject: Re: Subtask 1-Chuck's comments

Hi Everybody,
this is further to my last mail.
Chuck's comments are attached for your reference and comments.
Victoria is requested to circulate her comments to the Subtask 1 team.
After receiving Victoria's comments and also feedback from all of you, I will 
summarise them and circulate to WT.

regards,
SS





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4447 (20090922) __________


The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4448 (20090922) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com