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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

If two people support Claudio's comments, where
and when do these become a minority report?

Tony
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Victoria McEvedy 
  To: Claudio Di Gangi ; Julie Hedlund ; Olga Cavalli 
  Cc: gnso-osc-csg 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:59 PM
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit


  Claudio ---perhaps you should prepare a minority report to go with it? 

   

   

  Victoria McEvedy

  Principal 

  McEvedys

  Solicitors and Attorneys 



   

  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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
  Sent: 16 December 2009 16:57
  To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; Olga Cavalli
  Cc: gnso-osc-csg
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

   

  Victoria,

   

  That's fine. But any alternative views should also be listed.

   

  From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:54 AM
  To: Claudio Di Gangi; Julie Hedlund; Olga Cavalli
  Cc: gnso-osc-csg
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

   

  Claudio -your views have to be balanced against those of the other members.  
As I understand it ---SS, Rafik and I all support the current language.  

   

   

  Victoria McEvedy

  Principal 

  McEvedys

  Solicitors and Attorneys 



   

  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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
  Sent: 16 December 2009 16:51
  To: Victoria McEvedy; Julie Hedlund; Olga Cavalli
  Cc: gnso-osc-csg
  Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation 
re-submit

   

  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 



   

  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



  __________ 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



  __________ 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