Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Can the NCUC or its constituencies have the same criteria for membership as the 
IPC, ISPC or BC -  I don't think so.  

In any case uniformity is not language that appears anywhere.  Its not in the 
board resolution nor our charter.





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

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:25:55 
To: <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>; Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

Hi Zahid,
certainly, all participants have their own experience through their
involvement in constituencies or in the council. but I don' understand that
argument in the case of uniformity? what about fairness?
if the aim is to maintain exceptions, I am wondering if the ongoing
improvement  is still meaningful?

Rafik


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

> I would differ. I believe all of us bring value to the table as a result of
> our experience in our separate constituencies or other ICANN structures. If
> this was supposed to be a completely isolated initiative then all of us from
> any constituency or even as GNSO council members should recuse ourselves and
> let completely independent folk deal with this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: * Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Date: *Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:11:15 +0900
> *To: *<zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc: *Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; <
> Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>; <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity
>
> 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
>>
>
>