[gnso-osc-csg] FW: Subtask 1.2

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Work Team members,

In case you have not received it, here is Victoria's final draft for Subtask 
1.2.

Thank you,

Julie
------ Forwarded Message
From: Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:33:52 -0700
To: Claudio DiGangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>, Michael Young 
<myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, Tony Harris 
<harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "S.S. Kshatriy" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julie Hedlund 
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Subtask 1.2

No further comments having been received, please find the completed report. 
Claudio -your comments have been added in Part V.
In Agreement with Final Draft:
S.S. Kshatriya - Individual  (India )
Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
Michael Young -Registries Constituency
Tony Harris -ISP Constituencies

5 members in favour
Not in Agreement with Final Draft:
* Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
1 member against.

We have achieved rough consensus with more than 2/3 consensus.




Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3339259481_604602]

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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 October 2009 17:34
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: Subtask 1.2

Victoria,

I'm not sure what is so difficult to follow?

The draft needs to make clear where we have reached rough consensus and where 
we have not. In my view, the current draft does not do this. It lumps all of 
the recommendations together under Part II as if they all have the same level 
of support. This section is labeled: "Compromise Recommendations" with the 
description: "the Subtask members agreed the following recommended minimum 
common operating procedures for constituencies."

We have only reached rough consensus on some of these recommendations, but not 
others, and this needs to be clearly reflected. Recommendations that have not 
obtained rough consensus should be clearly marked and reflected in the draft. 
As an example, we have not reached rough consensus on item 5B: "All members, 
whether natural or legal persons, shall have equal voting rights" amongst 
others.

Part III of the draft should be called: "Alternate views" or something similar. 
It should not be called: "Part III: Recommendations Not Agreed" which is 
unclear as to meaning.

On section 1.2, I have provided comments previously on why I do not support 
your analysis. I believe you are pulling a quote out of context from the BGC 
report and inaccurately summarizing the issue. On section 1.3, ICANN does not 
have "members."  Also, I disagree with the assessment that the mailing list 
recommendation was not supported by the WT. (My view was simply to get more 
information on whether the BGC was suggesting that every mailing list be open 
or just the main one). I do not share your views that are expressed in 1.5 on 
process issues with the OSC.

On Parts 3.1, 3.2, through 3.12: It should be noted in the draft the analysis 
provided in other sections does not have rough consensus from the Subtask 
members. (I am only OK with the Sections 3.7 and section 3.8).

I do not agree with the reasoning provided in sections 3.1 - 3.5 (which I have 
stated in previous comments. For example on the WG model, I have stated that it 
may not serve groups well to adopt it in most cases). In other sections, 
analysis is provided to support recommendation(s) that I do not agree with (3.6 
, 3.11, 3.12). As a general matter, I see variations in operating procedures as 
being beneficial to the groups (as long as they act within broad guidelines), 
and this is contrary to the views expressed in these sections.

Also, I have previously commented that I think it is inappropriate, from a 
process perspective, to single any particular group for disparage treatment - 
(the report states that one group "offends basic democratic and representative 
principle and practice"). Can you please explain why this statement continues 
to remain in the draft?

Thanks.

Claudio




From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:21 AM
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: Subtask 1.2

Thanks Claudio. Apologies but I'm finding it very difficult to follow your 
points.

1.   Could you please indicate the precise parts/meanings in the background 
section, Part 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5-that you have an issue with so that we can see 
whether we can find language that you are happy with.



2.   Similarly as to Parts 3.1, 3.2, through 3.12.


Thanks.

Regards,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3339259481_612235]

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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 20 October 2009 17:04
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: Subtask 1.2

Victoria,

Thanks.

On the various sections of the document, including the Part IV analysis, I am 
not suggesting a "veto", but simply that you indicate the level of support from 
the Subtask team members. My status on these sections in summarized in my below 
email, which also includes some more detailed descriptions of some of the 
alternative viewpoints that were expressed. An additional one is below (on item 
12).

--------

Please amend item 12, (which states: 12. Two Subtask members support all 
recommendations applying to Stakeholder Groups in the Contracted Parties' 
Houses.)

As per the following: "Two Subtask members support having the WT 
recommendations apply equally across the GNSO. These Subtask members support 
having the recommendations apply on the level of where participation currently 
takes place in the GNSO: on the Stakeholder Group level in the Contracted 
Parties' Houses, and on the Constituency level in the Non-Contracted Party 
House.

Regards,
Claudio


From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:52 AM
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: Subtask 1.2

Thanks Claudio ---I don't want to put you to more effort but I would like to 
accommodate your points where possible and wonder if you would like to suggest 
particular language to reflect some of them-in particular as to the 
descriptions of minority views? Alternatively I can try to adapt from your 
commentary. Having gone to all the effort of drafting an analysis section -and 
substantially amending it twice -I think we should amend rather than veto.  
Also -at Subtask level in any event -we are trying to reach rough consensus.

Just to remind everyone -yesterday was the last day for comments on that draft 
so if you have them -please do share them. I think Michael also had comments.

I will circulate draft SG recommendations shortly.

Thanks and best,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3339259481_557819]

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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 20 October 2009 01:21
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: Subtask 1.2

Victoria,

Thanks for your continued efforts in revising the draft.

Please find my comments below.

Regards,
Claudio

3.   For reasons I have previously noted (it is subjective and incorrect 
factual summaries), I do not support the background section, Part 1.2, 1.3, 
1.4, 1.5

(This summary could be done on the full WT level or by ICANN staff.)

4.     On Part III: "Recommendations Not Agreed."



I believe you made a typo on the second item listed (it should be "2b" not 
"1b"). On the same item, in summarizing the alternative view point, you 
inserted your own view (in parenthesis) that the ICANN Bylaws "are silent on 
this topic". My suggestion would be to remove the parenthetical comment - this 
section should be for listing alternative views, not for providing critiques of 
them. (also just for reference, there is a Bylaw requirement that ICANN and its 
constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and 
transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness, 
Art. III.§1)



I disagree with the summary on items "1b" and item "8b".



To reiterate, the concern is that Groups maintain the ability to set qualifying 
criteria in constituting committees when necessary. For example, Groups may 
need to ensure some committees don't grow too large, are geographically 
diverse, have certain levels of expertise, etc. Sometimes this criteria will be 
completely objective, but at other times it may be less so.  Therefore, the 
summary should reflect these concerns, so I suggest the following:



Two Subtask members expressed only qualified support for the recommendations on 
committee formation. While the principle of open participation was supported, 
these members expressed the view that the respective recommendations, as 
drafted, were too broad and could lead to unintended consequences.



Note: If your main concern here is that all Group members be invited to 
participate and that the process should be open to all, then I think that the 
recommendations should be modified to reflect that, and I would be willing to 
support it.





5.      Part IV: Analysis

For the reasons stated in previous drafts, I do not support the analysis in 
Part IV: (3.1, 3.2, etc. through 3.12).



Also, in section 3.6, on page 10, for the first and only time in this very long 
document, one constituency group (the IPC) is being singled-out. This is 
unnecessary and contentious. Please remove the two references to the IPC in 
this section (including the second reference which is also incorrect).
















From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:02 PM
To: Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi; Anthony Harris; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Subtask 1.2

Dear Subtask team members,

Please see draft report with compromise language and issues not yet agreed 
together with amended language.

Regards,

Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:3339259481_604348]

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 4511 (20091015) __________

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 4524 (20091019) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4526 (20091020) __________

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


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4529 (20091021) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4533 (20091022) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


------ End of Forwarded Message

Attachment: 15OctDraftReportSubtask2COTCONSTITUENCY.doc
Description: