[gnso-osc-csg] RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team

["Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Please find attached the Subtask 2 Report with final comments included
as appropriate. This is now ready for the consideration by the full WT.


 

I must ask that that consideration be scheduled to commence on a call I
can participate in -I cannot join today's call due to a long standing
engagement and so please accept my apologies. 

 

Julie -I would be very grateful if you might help find the links to some
of the documents created by the WT and referred to herein. 

 

Regards, 

 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

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: 15 December 2009 20:36
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Anthony Harris; Rafik Dammak; SS
Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund; OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

Dear Subtask team,

 

I have attached comments on the latest Subtask 2 draft. Below is a quick
summary. I'm sorry if any of this was discussed on the recent Subtask
team call which I was not able to join.

 

1.      After all the comments have been submitted on the draft, I think
we need to reassess the level of support for each recommendation (& the
associated supporting analysis that is provided in a later section). For
example, on the Code of Practice there does not appear to be a simple
majority either way on the subtask team, yet this recommendation is
still listed under the "rough consensus" heading.

2.      Some of the previously submitted comments were not clearly
reflected in the latest draft (as the document now stands at over 20
pages long). To address this, I deleted Part V and added a sentence
under Part IV Analysis.

3.      I deleted the reference to the IPC in Section 3.6. This is the
only section of the document where a specific Constituency or
Stakeholder group is mentioned, and in particular, it is being mentioned
in a negative light. This runs contrary to the spirit of GNSO
Improvements and keeping the language in the document neutral and
non-contentious. 

4.      I reworded the language used in Part III to better reflect the
comments that were submitted. I also revised this section with a new
heading: Minority/Alternate Views

5.      Part II Compromise Recommendations - I changed the "rough
consensus" to majority viewpoint (if that is indeed still the level of
support for each of these recommendations)

 

Item 4 & 5 above concern the notion of how we are measuring support on
the subtask team level.

 

My understanding of the various labels within our WT Charter, including
the "rough consensus" label, is intended for the entire work team to
use, not for a "subtask".  The latter is too small for these labels to
make sense (for example: 4-2 is "rough consensus," but if even one vote
switched, there would not even be a majority position. On our subtask
team level, we should use either: unanimous consensus, majority view, or
minority view. 

 

I have cc'd the full work team for reference on the last point.

 

Claudio

 

 

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:33 PM
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Anthony Harris; Rafik Dammak;
Claudio Di Gangi; SS Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: [Junk released by Allow List] RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2
Team 

 

Dear all, 

 

Please see the attached with Michael, Tony and Claudio and SS's comments
included in Part III, 10.  Please advise if you have any issues as to
the manner of the inclusion or wording. Rafik -we would be grateful for
your views on this point. 

 

Please also advise any further comments for inclusion in on Parts II,
III or IV by return. 

 

Thank you.    

 

Victoria 

 

 

From: Victoria McEvedy 
Sent: 18 November 2009 17:11
To: 'Michael Young'; 'Anthony Harris'; 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Claudio Di
Gangi'; 'SS Kshatriy'
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Julie Hedlund'
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

Thank you for your comments Michael. Obviously you and Tony are not in
favour of Annex B and this is reflected already. If you'd like different
language included -that's fine.  

 

I would like to have the input from the rest of the team and we should
be trying to reach consensus and may need to discuss the objections and
the issues. Some comments were made on this topic at the meeting -ie how
matters work now that may need to be expanded on and explored in a call.


 

There may in the end be a minority position and a majority position. I
don't think it's ever appropriate to strike minority positions however.

 

I look forward to hearing from the rest of the subtask team. 

 

Regards,

 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

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: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 18 November 2009 17:03
To: Victoria McEvedy; 'Anthony Harris'; 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Claudio Di
Gangi'; 'SS Kshatriy'
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Julie Hedlund'
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

I concur with Tony, those at the meeting agreed that Annex B was out of
the recommendation scope. I feel most comfortable if we remove Annex B.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: November-18-09 9:02 AM
To: Anthony Harris; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi; SS
Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

Tony -I did not understand that from the MP3. The whole subtask team
were not present as SS and I were not there obviously and I did not
understand a poll was taken. I'm not aware of Rafik's position either.
Perhaps the subtask member can now indicate their view on this by email
or we should have a call.   

 

Best, 

 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

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: 18 November 2009 13:57
To: Victoria McEvedy; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi; SS
Kshatriy
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Re: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

Hello Victoria,

 

It is my recollection that, during the Seoul F2F meeting,

the general consensus was to eliminate Annex B

completely. Perhaps other members of the group can

corroborate this or correct me if I am mistaken?

 

Regards

 

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Victoria McEvedy <mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>  

To: Victoria McEvedy <mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>  ; Michael
<mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  Young ; Rafik Dammak
<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>  ; Anthony Harris
<mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; Claudio Di Gangi
<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>  ; SS <mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>  Kshatriy


Cc: Olga Cavalli <mailto:olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; Julie
<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>  Hedlund 

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:23 AM

Subject: RE: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

 

 

 

Please see my earlier email. I'm in some difficulty working from the MP3
as only very general comments were made and there was a
missunderstanding as to the inclusion of comments as noted below. Given
the comments are included I take it that its the form of inclusion may
be the issue and so if people want to redline, please do so, or
otherwise please advise the desired amendment in an email. I believe the
comments are limited to Part II, III and V. Thank you.  

 

From: Victoria McEvedy 
Sent: 05 November 2009 19:01
To: gnso-osc-csg; Michael Young; Rafik Dammak; Anthony Harris; 'Claudio
Di Gangi'
Cc: Olga Cavalli; 'Julie Hedlund'
Subject: GNSO-OSC-CSG: Subtask 1.2 Team 

 

Dear Subtask members, I've only now had a chance to listen to the MP3 of
the last meeting. 

 

Michael -I must correct the record. Your comments on Annex B were
reflected in the last draft as a minority position in Part III at point
10. Tony's agreement with them was recorded there also. No other subtask
team member had indicated agreement with your changes on this list. If
you wish them to be added in full to Part V or elsewhere, they can be.
They can also be discussed again by the subtask group. If you wish we
can arrange a separate call.    

 

I had circulated this document before the Seoul meeting and asked for
changes to language and no comments were received to that request -so
the version you had at the meeting reflected the lack of response and
silence was taken as consent.   

 

I do not have a transcript of the call -and do not wish to try to work
from the MP3. So I must ask Subteam members to now reline into the
document the exact changes they would like to the language. I will then
try to prepare a final amendment and re-circulate.   

 

I'm afraid I have a long standing lunch appointment tomorrow and will
not be able to attend the call. 

 

Thank you and best regards, 

 

Victoria McEvedy

Principal 

McEvedys

Solicitors and Attorneys 

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. 

 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4576 (20091105) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4585 (20091108) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4605 (20091113) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4616 (20091117) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4616 (20091117) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4617 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4617 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4618 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4618 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4620 (20091118) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4622 (20091119) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4632 (20091124) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4647 (20091129) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4658 (20091203) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4658 (20091203) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4691 (20091215) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Attachment: 18DecSubtask2.doc
Description: 18DecSubtask2.doc