RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to clarify that my only request is that Zahid agree to respect the GNSO 
Norms: 

 

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."

 

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."

 

I am merely asking that these norms be respected -precisely so that we can get 
on with our work. 

 

All WG members are equal and should abide by the rules. We cannot have special 
rules for some and not others. 

 

Regards, 

 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC

 

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: Papac, Krista [mailto:Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 14 October 2009 18:57
To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; Rafik Dammak
Cc: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; Victoria McEvedy; 
Glen@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

 

I agree with Zahid.  From what I have seen, the word "uniformity" is not used.  
It is the word "common" which is used and these two words do not mean the same 
thing.  I further agree with Zahid and others that we cannot have "uniform" 
membership criteria for all constituencies.  The nature of our 
multi-stakeholder model creates diversity, and it should, that prevents 
"uniform" membership criteria from being practical or desired.

 

I would like to add that I do not have an issue with Zahid's participation.  I 
know Olga is looking into this, but wanted to make my position known.

 

Finally, I am concerned that we are spending a lot of time debating things like 
Zahid's participation, and Chuck's role, rather than focusing on the intended 
work of this WG.  While it is important to make sure our WG is conducting 
itself in an appropriate fashion, I fear we have taken it to a level that is 
distracting and prevents progress.  

 

I appreciate the experience and input of all members of our WG and look forward 
to continued collaboration on the final product.

 

Best,

Krista 

 

**Please note my new Mobile Number 

Krista Papac 
Sales Executive 
Iron Mountain Digital 
5530 Bandini Blvd 
Bell, CA  90201  US 
Home Office: +1.714.846.8780 
Mobile: +1.714.865.7655 
Fax: +1.323.443.3573 
 <mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Order your complimentary copy of Software Escrow for Dummies today at  
<http://ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies> ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:29 AM
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; victoria@xxxxxxxxxx; 
Glen@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Uniformity

 

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

  _____  

From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:25:55 +0900

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@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 18:45:5



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

 

 

  _____  

The information contained in this email message and its attachments is intended 
only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, 
unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission of email over the 
Internet is not a secure communications medium. If you are requesting or have 
requested the transmittal of personal data, as defined in applicable privacy 
laws by means of email or in an attachment to email you must select a more 
secure alternate means of transmittal that supports your obligations to protect 
such personal data. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient 
and/or you have received this email in error, you must take no action based on 
the information in this email and you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, misuse, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by email and delete the original message. 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4507 (20091014) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com