<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation re-submit
- To: "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Harris, Anthony" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Claudio Di Gangi" <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "Olga Cavalli" <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG- Subtask 1-Final Recommendation re-submit
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:38:41 -0500
I think we may be confusing things a little here. Subtask 1 is now at the WT
level. Whether or not a position is a minority position will now need to be
determined at the full WT level, similar to what we did regarding the Toolkit
of Services recommendations. Let's discuss the pros and cons of the various
elements of the recommendations as a WT before we try to decide what is a
minority position. It is still possible that we can deal with areas of
conflict without choosing one side or another.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:10 PM
To: Harris, Anthony; 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
Sorry but I don't really understand your question Tony. If there are 3
in favour and 2 against -the 2 would be in the minority-and have a minority
position.
Perhaps I misunderstand you.
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: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 December 2009 18:07
To: Victoria McEvedy; 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
Victoria,
If two people support Claudio's comments, where
and when do these become a minority report?
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria McEvedy <mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Claudio Di Gangi <mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> ; Julie
Hedlund <mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> ; Olga Cavalli
<mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-osc-csg <mailto:gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
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
__________ 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|