Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Zahid,
Thanks for reply. it was typo because I wanted to say:
 'I think that we should:- behave in the way to *NOT* only defend the
interests of our respective constituency instead looking for a common
ground.'

I want to say again that we need uniformity and no constituency can ask for
privilege or exceptions, they all should be equal, no ;)?

Rafik

2009/10/15 Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>

> I see an obvious contradiction between the two statements from the email
> below?:
>
> 'I think that we should:- behave in the way to only defend the interests of
> our respective constituency instead looking for a common ground.'
>
> And
>
> 'I disagree with any attempt to defend the particular interest
> of constituency by trying to setup a lot of exceptions which de facto means
> the maintain of  statu quo.'
>
>
> How can we 'only defend the interests of our respective constituency' and
> yet not 'defend the particular interest of constituency'. ?
>
>
>
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Rafik Dammak
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: victoria@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: zahid@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Glen@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity
> Sent: 10 Oct 2009 17:10
>
> Hello , I think that we should: - behave in the way to only defend the
> interests of our respective constituency instead looking for a common
> ground. I want to talk that because the discussion about uniformity which is
> aimed to make charters, bylaws and so on more coherent between all
> constituencies. I disagree with any attempt to defend the particular
> interest of constituency by trying to setup a lot of exceptions which de
> facto means the maintain of  statu quo. we are in the process of improvement
> and restructuring not   in process of maintain the same situation and label
> it differently. -avoid the "push" way. I believe that usually make the
> opposite expected result, even me I don't like be pushed even "friendly".  -
> reach rough consensus : easy to state , hard to achieve. the matter is not
> to defend and advocate our proposal but find joint ones.  I agree for
> reopening issues but I think that should be exceptional. we are a work team
> and not a  diplomacy arena where a long negotiation predominates without
> clear outcomes. Rafik 2009/10/11 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I
> would add that there is precidence for reopening issues.  In the new gTLD
> process, several issues have been reopened.   Our goal is to get the
> strongest possible consensus as possible.  We cannot do that by excluding
> key view points.   Chuck From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday,
> October 09, 2009 10:27 PM To: victoria@xxxxxxxxxx; zahid@xxxxxxxxx;
> Glen@xxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-csg@icann.orgSubject: 
> 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 18:45:5
>
>
>
> 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
>