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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
I agree with Krista that the document is for full WT review.
All views must be considered.
I suggest we discuss on Friday how to organize our work from now on.
We also need to move forward with our work.
Regards
Olga


2009/12/16 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  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 *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 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 <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> ; Julie 
> Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; Olga
> Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg <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 *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 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 *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 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 *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 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 <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<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<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 <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
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar