RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Norms on Re-Opening

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Victoria,
 
Please see below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 5:52 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; zahid@xxxxxxxxx; Glen@xxxxxxxxx; 
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Norms on Re-Opening 
        
        

        Chuck - I believe these are accepted norms but in any event they are 
now included in the following:

         

         

        1.    The WG Implementation and Charter Drafting Guidelines at 1.3 
"..the Chair should be able to ensure that anyone joining a WG after it has 
begun has reviewed all documents and mailing list postings and agrees not to 
reopen  previously decided questions."
        [Gomes, Chuck] I cannot find this in our charter anyway.  Our charter 
does not have a section 1.3 as far as I can see.  Please provide the link for 
the document.  I am fully aware of the intent of the wording here because I was 
involved in developing WG guidelines.  Putting the issue of our charter aside, 
in this clause note that it is the Chair has the responsibility so if you have 
a concern in this regard, you should communicate that to the WT chair.     

         

        2.    The Draft WG Model Guidebook - "decisions that are made during a 
member's absence or silence should not be resurrected unless there is group 
consensus that the issue should be revisited."
        [Gomes, Chuck] Have you asked your subtask group whether they wish to 
revisit the issue? 

         

        We spent some 6 months arguing many of the wider points now being 
raised and should not have to go over this ground again ---particularly when we 
are making excellent progress on the actual language before us. Further, this 
is 'tag negotiating' -namely the introduction of fresh players at the end of 
negotiations who are not bound by concessions already made and who have an 
advantage over the exhausted participants. It is objectionable. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] Let's be honest, most of the six months was not spent 
arguing points about specific recommendations but rather it was spent at your 
request arguing process and procedures.  Now that we are finally at a point to 
deal with specific recommendations, you are trying to use procedural arguments 
to avoid dealing with the issues that participants are raising.    

         

        I would ask that the late joiners agree to re-read all previous meeting 
transcripts and/or listen to recordings and not to re-open.  Personally I would 
rather avoid the exercise of now having to go through them all again to 
demonstrate that the issues were dealt with ---this WG has already demanded a 
great deal of working time (and some of us are not paid for our ICANN work). 
        [Gomes, Chuck] You appear to be jumping to the conclusion that the late 
joiners have not done that.  The fact that someone disagrees with you, does not 
mean that they haven't done their homework.  

         

        If this is going to be a problem -then I think we should reconsider new 
members. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] That is a Council responsibility and I am very confident 
that the Council would not consider that a viable option.

         

        I strongly recommend that we get to our task at hand, which is to 
develop implementation recommendations and not to debate process and procedure. 
 Process and procedure is needed but if we spend the majority of our time on 
that, then we will not accomplish our task.  As a subtask leader you should be 
focused on making sure that all view points are included, not trying to exclude 
participation.  Section III of our charter says:    [Gomes, Chuck] "Decision 
Making: The WT shall function on the basis of "rough consensus" meaning that 
all points of view will be discussed until the Chair can ascertain that the 
point of view is understood and has been covered. That consensus viewpoint will 
be reported to the OSC in the form of a WT Report. Anyone with a minority view 
will be invited to include a discussion in the WT Report. The minority view 
should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to that part of 
the report."

         

        If you think that a member of your subtask group should be restricted 
in his/her participation, you should consult the chair.  The charter provides 
steps that should be taken: "Restricting Participation: The Chair in 
consultation with the Vice-Chair may restrict the participation of someone who 
seriously disrupts the WT. Any such restriction may be appealed to the OSC. 
Generally, the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned 
publicly, before such a restriction is put into place; in extreme circumstances 
these steps may be bypassed."

         

        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: 10 October 2009 03:27
        To: Victoria McEvedy; zahid@xxxxxxxxx; Glen@xxxxxxxxx; 
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

         

        I am not aware of any restriction about reopening an issue. Regardless, 
everyone in the subgroup must be given the opportunity to voice their support 
for a position and thereby be counted in the determination of rough consensus 
on the issue. 
        
        Chuck
        
        Chuck Gomes

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
        To: Victoria McEvedy ; zahid@xxxxxxxxx ; Glen de Saint Géry ; 
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx ; gnso-osc-csg 
        Sent: Fri Oct 09 18:45:50 2009
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity 

        Apologies for the short response earlier. Zahid I refer you to the BGC 
Report:   

         

        The BGC Report at p.43 mandated the development of the following: 

        1.      "...constituency-developed participation rules for all 
constituencies that encourage openness, transparency and accountability. The 
rules must adhere to the following  principles.." 
        2.      "..clear operating principles for each constituency to ensure 
that all constituencies function in a representative, open, transparent and 
democratic manner. Operating procedures adopted by constituencies should 
reflect common principles and follow these guidelines:"[1] 

        The BGC summarized this in the following action item at p.46: "Proposed 
Action Item: The Board requests: (i) The GNSO constituencies, with assistance 
from Staff as needed, to develop a set of participation rules and operating 
procedures, consistent with the principles outlined above, which all 
constituencies should abide by. The ICANN Board should ask the constituencies 
to develop and publicize common principles within six months; and to implement 
operating rules and procedures consistent with those principles at that time."

         

        Zahid, this WG spent some 6 months on these issues and I'm afraid I do 
believe there are rules about re-opening old ground. We spent months on literal 
approaches to the BGC. 

         

        Zahid ---I suggest you read all the old minutes and transcript.      

         

        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: Victoria McEvedy 
        Sent: 09 October 2009 21:02
        To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

         

        AKA common rules 

        Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

        
________________________________


        From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> 

        Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:47:01 +0100

        To: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; 
<owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>

        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

         

        Just listening to the audio of the call I missed. Could someone point 
out to me where the board used the word uniformity in the boards approval of 
the improvements. Having difficulty to find it.
        
        
        
        

        
        
        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: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> 

        Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:57:45 -0700

        To: gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>

        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] MP3 Constituency Operations work team call / 
Friday 9 October at 13:00 UTC.

         

        Dear All,
        
        Please find the MP3 recording of the Constituency Operations work team 
call held on Friday 9 October at 13:00 UTC.
        
        http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-constituency-ops-20091009.mp3
         
        On page:
        http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#oct
        
        Participants present:
        Michael Young - Registries - vice chair
        Rafik Dammak - NCUC
        Chuck Gomes - Registries 
        Victoria McEvedy - IPC
        Claudio Digangi - IPC  
        Tony Harris - ISP 
        SS Kshatriya - Individual
        
        ICANN Staff
        Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
        Julie Hedlund - Policy Staff
         
        Apologies
        Olga Cavalli - work team chair - NCA
        Krista Papac - Registrar c.
        Zahid Jamil - CBUC
        
        Thank you
        Kind regards
        Glen
        ---------------------------- 
        Glen de Saint Géry
        GNSO Secretariat
        gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        http://gnso.icann.org  

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 4494 (20091009)__________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com
        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 4494 (20091009) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com

        
        

________________________________

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 4494 (20091009) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com
        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 4494 (20091009) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com


________________________________

        [1] The BGC summarized this in the following action item at p.46: 
"Proposed Action Item: The Board requests: (i) The GNSO constituencies, with 
assistance from Staff as needed, to develop a set of participation rules and 
operating procedures, consistent with the principles outlined above, which all 
constituencies should abide by. The ICANN Board should ask the constituencies 
to develop and publicize common principles within six months; and to implement 
operating rules and procedures consistent with those principles at that time." 



        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 4494 (20091009) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com