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

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Robert. I haven't yet fully digested all of that but I just wanted to 
thank you at this stage for your very helpful and detailed reply -which I 
greatly appreciate. 

 

My interest really stems from a desire for comprehensiveness given we have the 
Staff reviews on the existing Constituency Charters and the Contracted Houses 
Stakeholder Group Charters. It seemed to me that the Staff's comments on the 
applicant Constituencies were the last piece of the puzzle-in terms of the 
Staff reviews.  

 

I was also interested to see whether a similar approach to compliance with 
minimum requirements was being taken in the case of the new applicants. Without 
the actual reviews however, it is not possible to determine this. 

 

Thanks again Robert. I will review this material further and revert with any 
follow up questions. 

 

Very best, 

 

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: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 20 October 2009 05:50
To: Julie Hedlund; Victoria McEvedy
Cc: gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: OSC-CSG: Request 

 

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 


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 


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
 

 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4524 (20091019) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4527 (20091020) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com