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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Robert.
Best regards
Olga

2009/10/20 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
> *
>
> 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<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
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Beau Brendler <
> beaubrendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:46:29 -0700
> Subject: Board Queries Regarding Consumer Constituency Petition
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Cheryl Preston <PRESTONC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Berg <dbergcio@xxxxxx
> >
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:55:06 -0700
> Subject: Board Queries Regarding CyberSafety Constituency Petition
>  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
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:14:27 -0700
> Subject: ICANN Board Queries Regarding IDNgTLD Constituency Proposal
>  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
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN <krischenowski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:45:19 -0700
> Subject: ICANN Board Comments Regarding the Proposed City TLD Constituency
>  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
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar