RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtasks

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Small grumble but I would just note that we are trying to get these reports out 
of subtask group and to the full WG –for WG comment. Please just consider that 
subtask leaders have been through endless rounds of comments and have had to 
try and aggregate them. There must be an end to this somewhere if we are ever 
to move forward. 

 

Regards,     

 

 

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: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Zahid Jamil
Sent: 16 December 2009 03:16
To: SS Kshatriy; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di 
Gangi
Cc: Olga Cavalli
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

 

Please note that I support Claudio's comments. I am also confident that the BC 
would support these comments. 





Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

  _____  

From: SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:09:22 -0800 (PST)

To: OSC-CSG Work Team<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>; Claudio Di 
Gangi<cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

Cc: Olga Cavalli<olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

 


Hi Claudio,

(Also with a request to chair to consider Claudio's comments)

I have read your concerns.
the document I submitted is Final and submitted second time. (Earlier, even 
Final Draft was submitted twice.). 

It is not a draft.

Thus it is Final Recommendations from my side and I don't propose to make any 
more change as it is not possible for me to accommodate all views the way one 
wants.

--

I will leave it to Chair and Team to decide.

You may request Chair to have your points in the Agenda.

 

best,

SS

 

 

--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit
To: "'SS Kshatriy'" <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>, "OSC-CSG Work Team" 
<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 9:52 AM

Dear SS,

 

Thanks. I am pleased to see that many of my prior concerns have been addressed 
with the latest draft.

 

A few of my concerns still remain however, so I have listed these below for 
ease of reference. I hope these can be addressed in the next version.

 

I note that in Section 3. Policy and Consensus, the current draft states:

 

“GROUPs shall function on the GNSO WG model for the purpose of reaching 
consensus and the use of voting should be minimized as much as possible.”  

 

I have previously stated that: GROUPs should be able to determine on their own 
merits, what model they would like to use for the purposes of reaching 
consensus within their membership.

 

I do not see a compelling reason why we need to mandate a uniform model that 
all GROUPs must use.

 

The last I checked the GNSO WG model was not yet fleshed out, so any decision 
to incorporate it into the internal functioning of a GROUP is premature -- or 
at least should be provisional. Also, a GNSO WG and a GNSO Constituency or 
Stakeholder Group have very different characteristics and different functions. 
As a result, I don’t think its correct to assume that a consensus model used in 
one setting, is necessarily the best to use another setting.

 

Here is a suggested amendment to the text:

 

“GROUPs should consider adopting various models for reaching consensus, 
including for example, the ICANN GNSO WG model. Whatever model the GROUP 
chooses to reach consensus should be made clear to its members within its 
bylaws or Charter. The use of voting within GROUPs should be minimized as much 
as possible.”  

 

My concern remains with recommendation D.1, which states:

 

“Admission criteria shall be certain and predictable and not arbitrary or 
discretionary.  Where eligibility depends on participation in a certain sector 
of business, then applicants shall be entitled to submit evidence of their 
participation.”  

 

I have previously commented that within certain GNSO groups, that there can 
elements of subjectivity involved in making admission decisions. This detail is 
not reflected in the current draft. I therefore recommend the following edit:

 

“Admission criteria shall be certain and predictable and not arbitrary or 
discretionary to the maximum extent possible.  Where eligibility depends on 
participation in a certain sector of business, then applicants shall be 
entitled to submit evidence of their participation.”  

 

On Section 2e, I still think the applicant should be able to “Opt-In or 
Opt-Out” of making their application status publically available. This is not 
reflected in the draft.

 

Thanks again for your continuing efforts.

 

Claudio

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:31 AM
To: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

 


Hi Chair and Team,

Further to posting of Final Recommendations, comments from Chuck, Zahid and 
Rafik were recieved.

I have incorporated these comments in the Final Recommendations and informed 
Chuck, Zahid and Rafik individually.

 

The Final document is re-submitted for your referwnce.

 

best,

SS

--

 

 

  _____  

 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4691 (20091215) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com