<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-on Claudio's Comments
- To: OSC-CSG Work Team <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-on Claudio's Comments
- From: SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Dear Claudio,
thanks for your mail.
I will study your remarks and accomodate them (as far as possible) along with
others while updating Draft 3 into final or Draft 4 as the case may be.
--
As for that particular clause please note that we can't revise BGC's guidelines.
It asks for 'Uniformity' and also 'one size will not fit all'. I have tried
accomodating both conflicting criteria with that language.
I have noted, while going through Membership guidelines of Constituencies,
that, some reuirements have to be different.
best,
SS
--- On Tue, 10/6/09, Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-on Claudio's Comments
To: "'SS Kshatriy'" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>, "OSC-CSG Work Team"
<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 3:24 PM
Dear SS,
I am resending my comments on Subtask 1, and to avoid confusion I have inserted
them into the Draft3 version. Thanks for your ongoing efforts on this work.
In regards to your question below, the current draft states:
‘All Groups must offer membership to natural persons or individuals as well as
to entities with legal personality such as corporations. However, anybody
applying for membership shall meet the membership criteria laid down by
individual Group with ICANN’s approval.
The reason I commented on this item is because it begins by requiring all
Groups to offer uniform membership, but then infers that Groups may elect to
develop their own criteria. I think phrasing it this way would confuse some,
but more importantly, it does not reflect the true diversity of interests
within the GNSO (as it implies that uniform membership is preferable or should
be the default).
My suggestion is the following:
“Groups should determine their membership criteria as they best deem
appropriate, based on the communities they represent. Groups should consider
offering membership to natural persons or individuals, as well as to entities
with legal personality such as corporations. However, anybody applying for
membership shall meet the membership criteria laid down by the Group with
ICANN’s approval.”
From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:34 AM
To: OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di Gangi
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-on Claudio's Comments
Dear Claudio,
1. I have seen your comments circulated earlier. Those are the comments on
Victoria's comments.
Not many of Victoria's comments are accommodated in Draft 3.
It will be difficult to co-relate and understand comments from different
documents and I may make mistakes.
Hence, I will request you to give your comments on Draft 3 wherever you want to.
2. Section 2 changes are re-produced below:
In Section 2, item be says, "All Groups must offer membership to
natural persons or .. .. ..
SS Chuck Gomes concern accommodated.
‘All Groups must offer membership to natural persons or individuals as well as
to entities with legal personality such as corporations.’ Is revised as:
‘All Groups must offer membership to natural persons or individuals as well as
to entities with legal personality such as corporations. However, anybody
applying for membership shall meet the membership criteria laid down by
individual Group with ICANN’s approval.
--
I am not able to understand; where is conflict?
Pl be a little more specific.
best,
SS
--
--- On Sat, 10/3/09, Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-ss
To: "SS Kshatriy" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>, "OSC-CSG Work Team"
<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:15 AM
SS,
I circulated comments on Subtask1 yesterday. Am I correct you received those,
and will incorporate them into the next draft?
Also, the change made on item 2 appears to contain conflicting recommendations.
can you clarify what your intention is on that item?
thanks
Claudio
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
SS Kshatriy [sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 2:02 AM
To: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-ss
Dear WT Members,
Attached is:
1. Cover Note on Subtask1-Draft 3 and,
2. Subtask1-Draft 3.
--
It is important to read Subtask1-Draft 3 along with Cover Note Subtask1-Draft 3.
Please send your feedback/comments by Thursday, October 08, 2009.
--
Please see that your feedback/comments are backed by reasoning and contribute
to 'GNSO Improvements'.
best regards,
SS
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|