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

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

Well said Krista.  I think you are correct.  I should have looked ahead in my 
inbox to see that you already said what I later tried to say.  Let's not 
prematurely assume impasse.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Papac, Krista
        Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:42 PM
        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
        
        

        Doesn't the full WT first need to review the document and either come 
to consensus on what should be included in it, or if there isn't consensus 
submit a minority report?  If that is the case, the full WT hasn't fully 
discussed the document nor come to consensus on the recommendation we will put 
forward.  My point being twofold - 1). a minority report from Claudio seems 
premature since we don't know how the full WT feels about the recommendations 
yet, and 2). It's important for the full WT to be aware of other views 
discussed by the sub WT and since Claudio's comments are not fully reflected in 
the document sent around he has sent them in an email to the rest of the WT.

         

        Thanks to SS for his hard work on this document.

         

        **Please note my new Mobile Number 

        Krista Papac 
        Sales Executive 
        Iron Mountain Digital 
        5530 Bandini Blvd 
        Bell, CA  90201  US 
        Home Office: +1.714.846.8780 
        Mobile: +1.714.865.7655 
        Fax: +1.323.443.3573 
        krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

        Order your complimentary copy of Software Escrow for Dummies today at 
<http://www.ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies> 
www.ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies

        Gartner advises: "It is also important that the licensee continue to 
track the software vendor's financials and viability annually, because any 
signs of financial problems would justify the cost of verification services."  
Continue reading the full report at: 
http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/ironmountain/170569.html
 
<http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/ironmountain/170569.html>
 

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
        Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:59 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 ---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

        
________________________________


        

        The information contained in this email message and its attachments is 
intended only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s) named 
above, unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission of email over 
the Internet is not a secure communications medium. If you are requesting or 
have requested the transmittal of personal data, as defined in applicable 
privacy laws by means of email or in an attachment to email you must select a 
more secure alternate means of transmittal that supports your obligations to 
protect such personal data. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient and/or you have received this email in error, you must take no action 
based on the information in this email and you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, misuse, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by email and delete the original message.