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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think there is anything for Julie to do until the WT discusses the 
recommendations and provides direction.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
        Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:34 AM
        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 
                                          -- 
                                         
                                        

                                          
                                         
                                        

                                           
                                         
                                        
                                        
________________________________