RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-on Claudio's Comments

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear SS,

Thanks for your note.

I understand the conflicting issues you were trying to reconcile, and 
appreciate the efforts you made in doing so. However, I don’t think we need to 
reconcile the concept of uniformity in all of our recommendations.  As you 
indicate, the BGC expressed desire for a limited form of uniformity, restricted 
only to the areas where it makes sense and would bring added-value in a 
bottom-up, diverse multi-stakeholder body like the GNSO.

Absent uniformity, we can still put forward recommendations that give guidance 
to Groups on what we think are best practices & good governance standards for 
them to follow. This was the basis for the recommendation I suggested.

Thanks again for your work on this draft.

Claudio



From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:25 PM
To: OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di Gangi
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Subtask 1-Draft 3-on Claudio's Comments

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<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>]
 On Behalf Of SS Kshatriy 
[sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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