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

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

Victoria,

As I stated yesterday, most of my prior concerns with Subtask 1 have been 
addressed once the document has been under revision by the full WT. However, 
not all of my previously submitted comments were reflected, so I resubmitted 
them yesterday.

For example, the subtask 1 document states:

"GROUPs shall function on the GNSO WG model for the purpose of reaching 
consensus".

My view was that constituencies and stakeholder groups should be free to pick 
their own model for reaching consensus, as long as they make that process clear 
in their bylaws or charter.

Can you please clarify how this has been incorporated in the "compromise 
language"?

Claudio

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:38 AM
To: Julie Hedlund; Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

I'm sure SS will answer in due course but I am fairly sure that this is not 
appropriate Julie. As I noted this morning -as subtask leaders we are concerned 
to aggregate comments and reach compromise language and this has been done. 
Claudio's comments have not been omitted by some oversight -they have been 
incorporated in the compromise language. I also think SS may like to keep 
ownership of the document.

Regards,



Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CA7E46.0C42B7F0]

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 Julie Hedlund
Sent: 16 December 2009 16:34
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

Dear Olga,

I am happy to take the pen, but I have a clarifying question: am I to include 
Claudio's comments in a revision of the latest version of the document that SS 
has provided and then circulate it to the Work Team for consideration and for 
discussion on Friday's call?  I can certainly do this, but I wanted to check 
first to see if my assumption is correct.

Thank you very much for your guidance.

Best regards,

Julie


On 12/16/09 11:13 AM, "Claudio DiGangi" <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chuck & Olga, I agree with your views.

I should note that I submitted nothing new yesterday. These comments had been 
previously submitted, several times in fact.

SS had previously placed them in separate document along with my other 
comments, and submitted them to the full WT just prior to the Seoul meeting. 
During the full WT revision process, these views somehow dropped off, so I 
resubmitted them again yesterday for the team's consideration.

Hope that clarifies.

Claudio


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: SS Kshatriy; OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di Gangi
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

Makes sense to me Olga.  Thanks.  At this stage, I suggest we give the pen to 
Julie.  SS has worked long and hard on this and that is very much appreciated 
but it would be unreasonable to expect him to continue to use his time in 
support of WT revisions; he signed up as subtask leader and has delivered what 
was expected.

Chuck
________________________________

From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga 
Cavalli
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: SS Kshatriy; OSC-CSG Work Team; Claudio Di Gangi
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit
Chuck and team,
my understanding is also that subtask 1 document is for full WT revision.
I understand SS concerns about preparing several versions and I commend his 
hard work and his efforts in including all views in these revisions.
Let me suggest the following, could we consider Claudio´s comments and Zahid 
support of them as part of the full WT revision process?
I will welcome your comments and we can add a point to our agenda on Friday to 
discuss this item, if needed.
Best regards and thanks all for the involvement and hard work.
Olga

2009/12/16 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Olga,

I believe we are at a point with subtask 1 where the document is now out of the 
hands of the subtask team and in the hands of the  full WT, so the WT can make 
changes if desired.  Is that correct?

Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of SS Kshatriy
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:09 PM
To: 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



   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 4693 (20091216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 4693 (20091216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com