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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Thank you very much.  That was my question - whether there was anything for me 
to do at this point.  I probably didn't phrase it very well.  I won't plan on 
doing anything until the WT discusses the recommendations and provides 
direction.

Julie


On 12/16/09 12:15 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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
  --








________________________________