[gnso-osc-csg] Re: OSC-CSG: Request

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Victoria and Julie:

My apologies for not providing a response to this inquiry sooner. As much as 
I'd like to simply cut and paste materials or otherwise simply add attachments 
to messages, its been my recent experience with the GNSO Improvements and their 
implementation that documents and actions can be misinterpreted when they are 
not shared with some context or background information.  You'll note that I am 
cc'ing the entire work team so that they can have the benefit of our 
communication.

There is very little formal dialogue presently available to share on the new 
GNSO Constituencies.  I am attaching for your review copies of emails that the 
Board recently instructed the Staff to send to the four new GNSO Constituency 
proponents seeking further information about their proposals.  Unfortunately, 
other than the few Board Paper recommendations referenced below, there has been 
little written communication on the petitions other than the proponents' 
filings themselves.  Until recently, the Board has been so focused on resolving 
Stakeholder Group issues and Bylaws amendments and broader issues related to 
new gTLDs and IDNs, that little formal attention time has been available to 
dedicate to the new Constituency petitions.

I must confess I don't understand the full context of Victoria's information 
request, so I am not sure if the attachments are completely responsive or even 
helpful.  In addition to the attachments, I hope the citations and links in 
this note will prove useful.  As you may both appreciate, the current 
application process for new GNSO Constituencies is quite different from the 
existing GNSO Constituency "re-confirmation" inquiries that began earlier this 
year. The two endeavors are taking place on completely different tracks and are 
being considered as separate and distinct actions by the Board because one 
process involves the evaluation of current practices and mechanisms employed by 
existing recognized ICANN entities while the other is a process to determine 
whether prospective communities should even be formally recognized as official 
entities by the Board.

Both processes are outlined in separate subsections of Article X, Section 5 of 
the newly amended ICANN Bylaws approved by the Board on 30 August 2009 (see - 
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-27aug09-en.htm). The criteria for 
reconfirming constituencies are expressed in Article X, Section 5(3) of the 
newly updated bylaws which states:

"3.   Each Stakeholder Group identified in paragraph 1 of this Section and each 
of its associated Constituencies, where applicable, shall maintain recognition 
with the ICANN Board.  Recognition is granted by the Board based upon the 
extent to which, in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the 
stakeholder communities it purports to represent and operates to the maximum 
extent feasible in an open and transparent manner consistent with procedures 
designed to ensure fairness.  Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters may 
be reviewed periodically as prescribed by the Board."

The process and criteria for considering and evaluating new GNSO Constituency 
applications are separately set forth in Article X, Section 5(4) and Section 
5(5). Those provisions state:

"4.  Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for 
recognition as a new or separate Constituency in the Non-Contracted Parties 
House.  Any such petition shall contain:
a.  A detailed explanation of why the addition of such a Constituency will 
improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development 
responsibilities;
b.  A detailed explanation of why the proposed new Constituency adequately 
represents, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent;
c.  A recommendation for organizational placement within a particular 
Stakeholder Group; and
d.  A proposed charter that adheres to the principles and procedures contained 
in these Bylaws.

Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency and the associated 
charter shall be posted for public comment."

"5.  The Board may create new Constituencies as described in Section 5(3 ) in 
response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if the Board determines that 
such action would serve the purposes of ICANN.  In the event the Board is 
considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of 
why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public 
comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new 
Constituency until after reviewing all comments received.  Whenever the Board 
posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, 
the Board shall notify the GNSO Council and the appropriate Stakeholder Group 
affected and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking 
action."

The current petition process for potential new Constituencies was created by 
the Staff at the Board's direction late last year a temporary measure. I 
believe the GNSO Council Operation Work Team may ultimately produce 
recommendations for a permanent new GNSO Constituency application process as 
outlined in the Bylaws, but the team so far has been focusing on Council 
operating procedure recommendations and other matters and has yet to address 
that issue. The current process and all the community submissions regarding 
those petitions, including some responses to the Board inquiries, are 
associated with the GNSO Improvements Information page at this link - 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.

As you both may know, until late last year there had been no formal new GNSO 
Constituency requests accepted by the Board in almost a decade and the existing 
proponents have all been working within the existing process at the same time 
the Board and community have been struggling to define the relationship between 
the new Stakeholder Group structures and the existing GNSO Constituencies. As a 
result, Board members, Staff members and proponents alike have also struggled 
with how to prepare, examine and evaluate the four new proposals. In formal 
Board Briefing Papers, Staff has made recommendations on how the Board may wish 
to proceed regarding the four pending applications, but I am not in a position 
to share those materials.  It is my understanding that access to those 
documents may be requested under the ICANN Accountability & Transparency 
Frameworks and Principles and that Victoria has previously investigated that 
process with Denise Michel on other matters.

I would be happy to talk directly with you Victoria regarding the application 
of the new constituency process so far, so please feel free to suggest some 
times when we may be able to discuss this matter - perhaps in a one-on-one 
telephone conversation or during the next Subtask team discussion. Again my 
apologies for my recent "bandwidth" limitations.  Unfortunately, I have no 
expectation that those pressures will decrease for some time so I welcome your 
good will in attempting to schedule any time to talk that works best for you.

Best regards,

Rob Hoggarth



On 10/16/09 10:56 AM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Victoria,

Rob is addressing this task.  I know he is working very hard to meet your 
request.

Best regards,

Julie


On 10/16/09 9:01 AM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Julie. As I say, I have no wish to add to the pressure but the request 
is now a week and a half old and it should be a matter of attaching to an email 
existing documents? Perhaps let me know when you do anticipate responding? 
Thanks



Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3338844617_28630230]

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: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 October 2009 14:00
To: Victoria McEvedy
Cc: Robert Hoggarth
Subject: Re: OSC-CSG: Request

Dear Vitoria,

We are working on your request, but have many competing tasks at the moment.  
We are doing our best to be as responsive as possible.

Thank you for your patience.

Best regards,

Julie


On 10/16/09 4:42 AM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Julie, further to my chase on Monday, could you please advise status of 
this request and likely response time?

I'm afraid this has now become urgent as I need to include in the final report 
for Subtask 1.2.

Thank you and regards,

Victoria McEvedy



From: Victoria McEvedy
Sent: 07 October 2009 15:09
To: Julie Hedlund
Cc: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Hoggarth; 'Glen de Saint Géry'
Subject: OSC-CSG: Request

Julie,

Just looking at that 25/9 transcript -(I was late to the meeting)-could we 
please also have the Staff comments on the new proposed Constituency Charters  
(ie the Consumers Constituency etc)-that way we have the complete picture 
across all Constituencies. If there is a link to a wiki about the new 
applicants and its all gathered there ---that would also be a help.

Thanks and best,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3338844617_28609516]

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.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4486 (20091007) __________

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 4507 (20091014) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4512 (20091015) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4512 (20091015) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4514 (20091016) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4514 (20091016) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Board Queries Regarding Consumer Constituency Petition
• From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:46:29 -0700

Dear Holly and Beau:

As you know, the critical path elements of the GNSO Restructuring have fully 
occupied the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and the ICANN Board 
agendas in recent months, but now Board Members have begun to focus on the four 
new GNSO Constituency petitions that have been formally received.  As part of 
their most recent deliberations and discussions in July, the Board directed the 
Staff to reach out to all the petitioners, advise them of questions and 
possible concerns that have been raised regarding their petitions and attempt 
to develop answers to any remaining questions before the Board makes a decision 
on each petition.  Any petitions that are approved will represent the first 
official new GNSO Constituencies in the last decade, so the Board wants to make 
sure it has resolved all outstanding questions before it acts.

The purpose of this email, then, is (1) to alert you to the outstanding issues 
that have been identified regarding the Consumer's Constituency Petition and 
(2) to set up an opportunity to talk with you about the potential to 
address/resolve them.  As appropriate, we can work with you to identify 
specific action steps and timeframes for updating the Board on your proposal.
The bullet points below are derived from specific Board queries, comments and 
other observations made over the past two months.  I would be happy to talk 
with you both about Staff's understanding regarding the context of the Board's 
questions.

Noted Comments and Concerns regarding the Consumers Constituency proposal:

 *   How can the Board properly evaluate the membership's breadth, diversity, 
and international representativeness for this important community segment?
 *   While the Constituency aims to speak for consumer groups, the Charter 
appears to limit its interest to the 'safety and stability of the Internet ... 
such as fraud, spam, phishing and identity theft.'
 *   By specifically excluding free expression and privacy, is there a risk of 
creating a single-viewpoint Constituency?
 *   Although addressed in the Petition, there is a continuing concern about 
potential duplication with ALAC.
 *   The Petition should be modified to address the most current proponents and 
organizations supporting this Constituency.
 *   It has been noted that the Constituency's Charter, written before recent 
Board decisions concerning Stakeholder Groups and Bylaws Amendments, contains 
provisions that are now out of compliance with the recent decisions.

Please let me know the best possible dates/times of day when you might be 
available to have a conference call with me and Ken Bour to discuss these 
issues.

Thanks and best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

+1 424 558 4805

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Cheryl Preston <PRESTONC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Berg <dbergcio@xxxxxx>
• Subject: Board Queries Regarding CyberSafety Constituency Petition
• From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:55:06 -0700

Dear Cheryl and Dave:

As you probably know, the critical path elements of the GNSO Restructuring have 
fully occupied the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and the ICANN Board 
agendas in recent months, but now Board Members have begun to focus on the four 
new GNSO Constituency petitions that have been formally received.  As part of 
their most recent deliberations and discussions in July, the Board directed the 
Staff to reach out to all the petitioners, advise them of questions and 
possible concerns that have been raised regarding their petitions and attempt 
to develop answers to any remaining questions before the Board makes a decision 
on each petition.  Any petitions that are approved will represent the first 
official new GNSO Constituencies in the last decade, so the Board wants to make 
sure it has resolved all outstanding questions before it acts.

The purpose of this email, then, is (1) to alert you to the outstanding issues 
that have been identified regarding the CyberSafety Constituency Petition and 
(2) to set up an opportunity to talk with you about the potential to 
address/resolve them.  As appropriate, we can work with you to identify 
specific action steps and timeframes for updating the Board on your proposal.

The bullet points below are derived from specific Board queries, comments and 
other observations made over the past two months.  I would be happy to talk 
with you both about Staff's understanding regarding the context of the Board's 
questions.

Noted Questions, Comments and Concerns:

*     This community of "previously unrepresented users, including parents, 
children, women, cultural organizations, religions, and others" is not 
perceived to be "specific and significant" enough, as currently defined, to 
form a Constituency of the GNSO.

*     CSC proponents have not adequately defined its membership in ways that 
would make the community unique and non-duplicative of other ICANN structures.

*     There is also a question about the applicability of a "law enforcement" 
role within the CSC.

Please let me know the best possible dates/times of day when you might be 
available to have a conference call with me and Ken Bour to discuss these 
issues.

Thanks and best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

424.558.4805

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: ICANN Board Queries Regarding IDNgTLD Constituency Proposal
• From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:14:27 -0700

Dear Dr. Subbiah;

Greetings! I hope that all is well with you and your family.

As you probably know, the critical path elements of the GNSO Restructuring 
effort have fully occupied the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and the 
ICANN Board agendas in recent months, but now Board Members have begun to focus 
on the four new GNSO Constituency petitions that have been formally received.  
As part of their most recent deliberations and discussions in July, the Board 
directed the Staff to reach out to all the petitioners, advise them of 
questions and possible concerns that have been raised regarding their petitions 
and attempt to develop answers to any remaining questions before the Board 
makes a decision on each petition.  Any petitions that are approved will 
represent the first official new GNSO Constituencies in the last decade, so the 
Board wants to make sure it has resolved all outstanding questions before it 
acts.

The purpose of this email, then, is (1) to alert you to the outstanding issues 
that have been identified regarding the IDN gTLD Constituency Petition and (2) 
to set up an opportunity to talk with you about the potential to 
address/resolve them.  As appropriate, we can work with you to identify 
specific action steps and timeframes for updating the Board on your proposal.

The bullet points below are derived from specific Board queries, comments and 
other observations made over the past two months.  I would be happy to talk 
with you both about Staff's understanding regarding the context of the Board's 
questions.

Noted Questions, Comments and Concerns:

 *   The Constituency's proposed membership is multi-stakeholder and 
inconsistently aligned with the existing four SG Charters.
 *   The Commercial SG observed that this prospective Constituency does not 
satisfy its current eligibility criteria.
 *   The Constituency is comprised of governmental entities, which calls into 
question the long-standing ICANN tradition of maintaining government 
involvement in an advisory capacity.
 *   The Constituency appears to be single-issue focused on non-Latin script 
IDNs.  Are there other GNSO gTLD policies that this Constituency would follow 
and address?

Please let me know the best possible dates/times of day when you might be 
available to have a conference call with me and Ken Bour to discuss these 
issues.

Thanks and best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

+1 424.558.4805

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN <krischenowski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: ICANN Board Comments Regarding the Proposed City TLD Constituency
• From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:45:19 -0700

Dear Dirk;

Greetings!

As you probably know, the critical path elements of the GNSO Restructuring 
effort have fully occupied the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and the 
ICANN Board agendas in recent months, but now Board Members have begun to focus 
on the four new GNSO Constituency petitions that have been formally received.  
As part of their most recent deliberations and discussions in July, the Board 
directed the Staff to reach out to all the petitioners, advise them of 
questions and possible concerns that have been raised regarding their petitions 
and attempt to develop answers to any remaining questions before the Board 
makes a decision on each petition.  Any petitions that are approved will 
represent the first official new GNSO Constituencies in the last decade, so the 
Board wants to make sure it has resolved all outstanding questions before it 
acts.

The purpose of this email, then, is (1) to alert you to the outstanding issues 
that have been identified regarding the City TLD Constituency Petition and (2) 
to set up an opportunity to talk with you about the potential to 
address/resolve them.  As appropriate, we can work with you to identify 
specific action steps and timeframes for updating the Board on your proposal.

The bullet points below are derived from specific Board queries, comments and 
other observations made over the past two months.  I would be happy to talk 
with you both about Staff's understanding regarding the context of the Board's 
questions.

Noted Comments and Concerns:


 *   Individual Registries and Registrars will now be members of their 
respective Stakeholder Groups (SGs) in the Contracted Parties House; therefore, 
the gTLD Registries and Registrars Constituencies will not continue to exist in 
their current form.
 *   The SG Charters approved by the Board provide the opportunity for 
"Interest Groups" to form and coalesce around common themes.
 *   There is no separate Constituency structure available or required in the 
Registries SG.
 *   Each individual City, once it signs a contract with ICANN as a Registry, 
will be eligible to apply for membership within the Registries SG.
 *   During the interim period, prior to any individual city signing a formal 
contract with ICANN, the RySG Charter provides an option for such cities to 
become engaged with the SG in an "observer" role.

Please let me know the best possible dates/times of day when you might be 
available to have a conference call with me and Ken Bour to discuss these 
issues and their impact on the City TLD Constituency Petition.

Thanks and best regards,

Rob Hoggarth

+1 424.558.4805

--- End Message ---