[gnso-osc-csg] RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Subtask team,

I have attached comments on the latest Subtask 2 draft. Below is a quick 
summary. I'm sorry if any of this was discussed on the recent Subtask team call 
which I was not able to join.


1.      After all the comments have been submitted on the draft, I think we 
need to reassess the level of support for each recommendation (& the associated 
supporting analysis that is provided in a later section). For example, on the 
Code of Practice there does not appear to be a simple majority either way on 
the subtask team, yet this recommendation is still listed under the "rough 
consensus" heading.

2.      Some of the previously submitted comments were not clearly reflected in 
the latest draft (as the document now stands at over 20 pages long). To address 
this, I deleted Part V and added a sentence under Part IV Analysis.

3.      I deleted the reference to the IPC in Section 3.6. This is the only 
section of the document where a specific Constituency or Stakeholder group is 
mentioned, and in particular, it is being mentioned in a negative light. This 
runs contrary to the spirit of GNSO Improvements and keeping the language in 
the document neutral and non-contentious.

4.      I reworded the language used in Part III to better reflect the comments 
that were submitted. I also revised this section with a new heading: 
Minority/Alternate Views

5.      Part II Compromise Recommendations - I changed the "rough consensus" to 
majority viewpoint (if that is indeed still the level of support for each of 
these recommendations)

Item 4 & 5 above concern the notion of how we are measuring support on the 
subtask team level.

My understanding of the various labels within our WT Charter, including the 
"rough consensus" label, is intended for the entire work team to use, not for a 
"subtask".  The latter is too small for these labels to make sense (for 
example: 4-2 is "rough consensus," but if even one vote switched, there would 
not even be a majority position. On our subtask team level, we should use 
either: unanimous consensus, majority view, or minority view.

I have cc'd the full work team for reference on the last point.

Claudio


From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:33 PM
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Anthony Harris; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di 
Gangi; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: [Junk released by Allow List] RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

Dear all,

Please see the attached with Michael, Tony and Claudio and SS's comments 
included in Part III, 10.  Please advise if you have any issues as to the 
manner of the inclusion or wording. Rafik -we would be grateful for your views 
on this point.

Please also advise any further comments for inclusion in on Parts II, III or IV 
by return.

Thank you.

Victoria


From: Victoria McEvedy
Sent: 18 November 2009 17:11
To: 'Michael Young'; 'Anthony Harris'; 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Claudio Di Gangi'; 'SS 
Kshatriy'
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Julie Hedlund'
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

Thank you for your comments Michael. Obviously you and Tony are not in favour 
of Annex B and this is reflected already. If you'd like different language 
included -that's fine.

I would like to have the input from the rest of the team and we should be 
trying to reach consensus and may need to discuss the objections and the 
issues. Some comments were made on this topic at the meeting -ie how matters 
work now that may need to be expanded on and explored in a call.

There may in the end be a minority position and a majority position. I don't 
think it's ever appropriate to strike minority positions however.

I look forward to hearing from the rest of the subtask team.

Regards,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CA7D96.89168000]

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: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 November 2009 17:03
To: Victoria McEvedy; 'Anthony Harris'; 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Claudio Di Gangi'; 'SS 
Kshatriy'
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Julie Hedlund'
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

I concur with Tony, those at the meeting agreed that Annex B was out of the 
recommendation scope. I feel most comfortable if we remove Annex B.

Best Regards,

Michael Young

Vice-President,
Product Development
Afilias
O: +14166734109
C: +16472891220

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: November-18-09 9:02 AM
To: Anthony Harris; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

Tony -I did not understand that from the MP3. The whole subtask team were not 
present as SS and I were not there obviously and I did not understand a poll 
was taken. I'm not aware of Rafik's position either. Perhaps the subtask member 
can now indicate their view on this by email or we should have a call.

Best,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CA7D96.89168000]

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: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 November 2009 13:57
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

Hello Victoria,

It is my recollection that, during the Seoul F2F meeting,
the general consensus was to eliminate Annex B
completely. Perhaps other members of the group can
corroborate this or correct me if I am mistaken?

Regards

Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria McEvedy<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Victoria McEvedy<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> ; Michael 
Young<mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Rafik 
Dammak<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> ; Anthony 
Harris<mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Claudio Di 
Gangi<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> ; SS Kshatriy<mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Olga Cavalli<mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Julie 
Hedlund<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team




Please see my earlier email. I'm in some difficulty working from the MP3 as 
only very general comments were made and there was a missunderstanding as to 
the inclusion of comments as noted below. Given the comments are included I 
take it that its the form of inclusion may be the issue and so if people want 
to redline, please do so, or otherwise please advise the desired amendment in 
an email. I believe the comments are limited to Part II, III and V. Thank you.

From: Victoria McEvedy
Sent: 05 November 2009 19:01
To: gnso-osc-csg; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; 'Claudio Di 
Gangi'
Cc: Olga Cavalli; 'Julie Hedlund'
Subject: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

Dear Subtask members, I've only now had a chance to listen to the MP3 of the 
last meeting.

Michael -I must correct the record. Your comments on Annex B were reflected in 
the last draft as a minority position in Part III at point 10. Tony's agreement 
with them was recorded there also. No other subtask team member had indicated 
agreement with your changes on this list. If you wish them to be added in full 
to Part V or elsewhere, they can be. They can also be discussed again by the 
subtask group. If you wish we can arrange a separate call.

I had circulated this document before the Seoul meeting and asked for changes 
to language and no comments were received to that request -so the version you 
had at the meeting reflected the lack of response and silence was taken as 
consent.

I do not have a transcript of the call -and do not wish to try to work from the 
MP3. So I must ask Subteam members to now reline into the document the exact 
changes they would like to the language. I will then try to prepare a final 
amendment and re-circulate.

I'm afraid I have a long standing lunch appointment tomorrow and will not be 
able to attend the call.

Thank you and best regards,

Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CA7D96.89168000]

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 4576 (20091105) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4585 (20091108) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4605 (20091113) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4616 (20091117) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4616 (20091117) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4617 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4617 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4618 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4618 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4620 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4622 (20091119) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4632 (20091124) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4647 (20091129) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4658 (20091203) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4658 (20091203) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Attachment: COT report, Subtask2 (121509).doc
Description: COT report, Subtask2 (121509).doc