RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010 NairobiMeeting

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

I like this.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:54 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak; Papac, Krista
        Cc: Victoria McEvedy; zahid@xxxxxxxxx;
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting
        
        

        Thanks for this excellent analysis Chuck.

         

        As per our discussion on today's call, I offer the following
language to further refine:

         

        1.     No person shall serve in the same constituency or SG
leadership position for more than four consecutive years.

        2.     A grandfather clause shall cover those volunteers
currently serving in leadership positions.

        3.     Any exception to this policy would require approval by
membership.

          

         

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 10:22 AM
        To: Rafik Dammak; Papac, Krista
        Cc: Victoria McEvedy; zahid@xxxxxxxxx;
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting

         

        I have been following the discussion on the topic of term limits
for various Constituency/SG positions and have come to the conclusion
that we are spending an awful lot of time on this issue.  Maybe it will
be helpful if we back up and consider what our task is in this regard.
Our overall objective is to make recommendations regarding how to
implement the Board approved GNSO recommendations with regard to
Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  From the checklist that we
developed (see 
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/constituency_
operations_team:20090301154146-0-8526/original/Draft%2520OSC-CSG%2520WT%
2520Board%2520Recommendation%2520Checklist.doc
<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-osc/attachments/constituency
_operations_team:20090301154146-0-8526/original/Draft%2520OSC-CSG%2520WT
%2520Board%2520Recommendation%2520Checklist.doc> ) for the CSG WT, the
only one that seems to apply here is this one: " 

        Operating principles should ensure constituencies function in a
representative, open, transparent & democratic manner."  If we go back
to the Board approved recommendations themselves (
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-repor
t-03feb08.pdf), in particular Section 6, here are the ones that I think
apply in this case followed in each case with my personal comments in
italic font:

        1.      "Our goal is to make the way in which stakeholders
interact in the GNSO, whether organized as constituencies, interest
groups or another vehicle, as inclusive and representative as possible,
without sacrificing effectiveness or efficiency." (last paragraph p.39)
- Whatever we recommend regarding term limits, they should in our best
judgment not sacrifice effectiveness or efficiency. 
        2.      "At present, each constituency has a different set of
membership and operating processes, and it is difficult for an
individual to have a quantifiable impact on the policy process other
than through a constituency. . . . One solution is for each constituency
to have a clearly communicated set of participation rules and operating
principles that are based on common principles developed by the GNSO."
(3rd to last paragraph on p.42) - Is there a common principle that we
can agree on regarding term limits that can be applied generally to all
constituencies and SGs? I think that the quoted statement from the Board
recommendation document in item 4 below may give us this common
principle. 
        3.      "The reviews of the GNSO suggest that there is a need
for greater transparency within constituencies and greater consistency
across constituency structures. The constituencies should take the lead
in formulating common operating principles, with participation from the
Council and staff. Within certain broad and important guidelines, there
can still be room for innovation and differentiation in the detailed
procedures developed by each constituency that best meet the needs of
that constituency." (Last paragraph on p.42 to p.43) - Note that not
everything has to be standardized for all constituencies and SGs so we
need to try to find a balance between common practices and flexibility
to deal with the diversity of constituencies and SGs. 
        4.      "There should be term limits for constituency officers,
so as to help attract new members and provide everyone with the chance
to participate in leadership positions." (2nd to last bullet on p.43) -
As commented in item 3 above, I believe that this is a general principle
that can be applied regarding term limits. 
        5.      "As noted, constituency procedures should establish term
limits for constituency officers in order to help attract new
participants by providing individuals with more opportunity to
participate in leadership positions. This is similar to the rationale
for the GNSO's decision to establish term limits for Councilors. These
and other steps can help improve the global distribution of constituency
participants and elected GNSO representatives, along with focused, ICANN
staff-supported, constituency participation recruitment efforts for
officers and GNSO Councilors (see LSE Rec. #5; Sharry Rec. #3)."  (last
paragraph on p.43 to p.44) - This adds a little more clarity to item 4.
It seems to me that it is a good goal to "improve the global
distribution of constituency participants" in all areas of constituency
and SG operations while still maintaining enough flexibility to
accommodate differences. 

        Based on the above, I would suggest that we recommend the
following: There should be term limits for all constituency and SG
leadership positions that do not exceed four years.  Here is my
rationale:

        *       I fully understand the difficultly of finding leaders
who have the time and are willing to devote the time to serve in
leadership capacities so I agree with those who argue against term
limits that are too short; also there is a steep learning curve, so it
is useful to minimize too rapid turnover.  Along this same line, it may
be helpful to note that the Board is currently planning to lengthen
Board terms for some of the same reasons. 
        *       I also understand the risk of capture within groups.
Depending on the organizational structure, capture may occur at
different levels of leadership, so it seems to me that it makes sense to
apply  the Board recommendation of term limits to all leadership
positions.  I would add that the issue of capture was a concern before
the very first DNSO constituencies were formed over ten years ago. 
        *       I see no need to proscribe how constituencies or SGs
apply the term limits.  If they think that four one-year terms meet
their needs, fine. If two 2-year terms works or if one 4-year terms is
decided to be the better approach, fine. If constituencies or SGs want
to establish term limits shorter than four years, I believe they should
have that freedom even though I think that goes counter to my rationale
in the first bullet above. 
        *       If a constituency or SG does not have enough members to
allow for turnover of leadership at least every four years, then I
wonder whether they are truly representative of the broader community
they supposed to represent.  I clearly understand that there will always
only be a minority of of individuals who can and will step up to the
plate to lead, but if any of our groups are so small that this becomes a
serious problem, then there probably needs to be more outreach within
the group and outside the group as applicable, which I believe is CSG WT
Task 2. 
        *       Finally, I believe that term limits not to exceed four
years would accomplish the Board approved recommendations regarding term
limits and the goals articulated in that regard without compromising
effectiveness or efficiency. 

        My apologies for the lengthy message, but I hope it helps.

         

        Chuck

         

        P.S. - I don't know if I just overlooked it, but I don't think
that our wiki has a link to the Board approved recommendations.  Seems
to me that should be added in an easy to find way.

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
        Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:54 AM
        To: Papac, Krista
        Cc: Victoria McEvedy; zahid@xxxxxxxxx;
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting

        Hello All, 

         

        I am little surprised that the most active groups (and those
having strong interests in domain names) sounds having problems to find
people who can commit and volunteer :)

         

        let's say that the 2 years term and 2 terms limitations is the
worse case, but if Registrar group want 1 year term, it is up to them.
if the limitation is 3 years in office which is less than 4 years (2+2
in GNSO) it may be accepted too.

         

        we need to find common ground, I am really worried that we are
keeping exceptions every time for each recommendation and making them
too much weak with all these rewording . 

        @Krista it is important to mandate a length of time for term,
otherwise there is a risk  capture  and less accountability.

         

        Regards

         

        Rafik

        2010/3/19 Papac, Krista <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

        1.      It is not easy to find people who can commit to two-year
terms.  In the case of my SG, we already need three people who can
commit to two-year terms if we extend the requirement to the EC also, it
means we now need seven people who can make such a commitment.  This is
not practical or easily done. 
        2.      I don't believe it is the GNSO's purpose nor their goal
to tell GROUPs what their term limits should be, but rather to develop
common principles.  Term limits are a common principle and should be
applied, but how does the GNSO know what is an appropriate term limit
for a given group? 
        3.      I don't understand why we feel it is appropriate to
mandate any length of time for a term.  Victoria, why do you feel so
strongly about setting the term limit and/or setting it to two-years? 
        4.      I agree with Zahid, it is not a matter of status quo or
interest.  It is a practical matter. 

         

         

         

         

        Krista Papac 
        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>  

         

        "Software Escrow for Dummies" - order your complimentary copy
today at www.ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies

         

        New Gartner Report: Successful Software Escrow Requires Planning
and Negotiation

        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/1
70569.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: Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:23 PM
        To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; Papac, Krista; 
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Rafik Dammak

        
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg

        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting

         

        Simpler, standardized and easier to understand Groups should be
less logistically challenging for all.     

         

         

        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: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: 18 March 2010 22:18
        To: Victoria McEvedy; Papac, Krista; 
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Rafik Dammak
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting

         

        Its not a matter of status quo or any interest. It will be a
logistical challenge just to implement such a situation.

        
        
        Sincerely,
        
        Zahid Jamil
        Barrister-at-law
        Jamil & Jamil
        Barristers-at-law
        219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
        Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
        Cell: +923008238230
        Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
        Fax: +92 21 5655026
        www.jamilandjamil.com
        
        Notice / Disclaimer
        This message contains confidential information and its contents
are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not
the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
this e-mail.
        Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The
contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil &
Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information
protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication,
use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts
(including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means
whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil &
Jamil is prohibited.
        
        
        Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device

________________________________

        From: Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 

        Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:13:16 +0000

        To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx<zahid@xxxxxxxxx>; Papac, Krista<
Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<
owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>; Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>

        Cc: Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-osc-csg<
gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>

        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting

         

        But is our mission to recreate or justify the status quo?  

         

        It seems we may have lost sight of the BGC's aims here.  

         

        If the recommendations are to be no more than everyone can do
their own thing as long as they record it in their charters ----we have
wasted a great deal of time and effort. 

         

         

        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 Zahid Jamil
        Sent: 18 March 2010 22:04
        To: Papac, Krista; owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx; Rafik Dammak
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
NairobiMeeting

         

        I agree with Krista. The BC similarly has varying term limits of
EC compared to Councillors -we even have variance in between
councillors.

        
        
        Sincerely,
        
        Zahid Jamil
        Barrister-at-law
        Jamil & Jamil
        Barristers-at-law
        219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
        Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
        Cell: +923008238230
        Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
        Fax: +92 21 5655026
        www.jamilandjamil.com
        
        Notice / Disclaimer
        This message contains confidential information and its contents
are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not
the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
this e-mail.
        Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have
received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The
contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil &
Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information
protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication,
use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts
(including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means
whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil &
Jamil is prohibited.
        
        
        Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device

________________________________

        From: "Papac, Krista" <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

        Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:35:37 -0400

        To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>

        Cc: Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-osc-csg<
gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>

        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
Nairobi Meeting

         

        Hello Rafik,

         

        I do not think EC term limits have to consistent with GNSO term
limits.  In fact, in the RrSG our current term limits are different than
our GNSO term limits.  RrSG EC term limits are one-year terms, with a
consecutive three-year restriction in the same office.  I think it is
widely accepted that GNSO Councilors serve two-year terms, but elected
EC officials vary.  Sometimes it is difficult to get an EC official to
commit for such a lengthy term - and at the end of the day, I feel any
and all term limits should be as set out in the Charter of the GROUP.
Although, since the GNSO Councilor office affects most/all GROUPS I can
see a need for a consistent policy there.

         

        I hope that helps.

         

        Thanks,

        Krista 

         

        Krista Papac 
        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>  

         

        "Software Escrow for Dummies" - order your complimentary copy
today at www.ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies

         

        New Gartner Report: Successful Software Escrow Requires Planning
and Negotiation

        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/1
70569.html
<http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/ironmountain/
170569.html> 

         

________________________________

        From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:01 AM
        To: Papac, Krista
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] RE: Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010
Nairobi Meeting

         

        Hello Krista,

         

         

        do you think that EC shouldn't comply to term limitations which
is applied to GNSO council itself?

         

        Rafik

        2010/3/15 Papac, Krista <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

        All,

         

        Here are my suggested changes to Part II, Section 4a.  Additions
are bracketed in red capital letters and deletions are stricken through
in red.

         

        4. Elections 

        a. All  {GROUP} {CHARTERS SHALL CLEARLY DELINEATE HOW) {ELECTED
POSITIONS}, including representatives to Stakeholder Group {EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEES} and the GNSO Council, shall {BE ELECTED, WHAT THE TERM
LIMITS ARE FOR EACH POSITION, AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF} have a maximum two
year limit and a maximum of two consecutive terms {IN THAT  THE SAME
POSITION}. {ANY OTHER PROCEDURES RELATED TO ELECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO
ELECTION PROCEDURES MUST ALSO BE DESCRIBED IN THE GROUP CHARTER.}  An
Officer who has served two consecutive terms must remain out of office
for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term {IN THAT SAME
POSITION   {GROUPS}  MAY} elect terms and term limits below these
maximums at their discretion. {WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND EXCEPTIONS TO
THIS REQUIREMENT. EXCEPTIONS MAY ONLY BE MADE WITH SUPPORT FROM
TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP.}
        b. It is recommended {GOING FORWARD} that  {GROUPS} publish and
maintain a list of all Office holders, past and present, { {GROUP}
members and to provide transparency for term limits.

         

        I also want to comment on Part II, Section 1c.  I believe we may
have closed this section out, but since I was unable to make the calls
due to the reschedule time I am providing my comment to the WT in hopes
we can make a change.  This section (pasted below) refers to Executive
Committees and term limits.  From the perspective of the RrSG, this
section should also refer to the Group Charter, rather than dictating
what term limits are. I have suggested changes below.  Additions are
bracketed in red capital letters and deletions are stricken through in
red.

         

        1. Executive Committees: 

        a. All Executive Committees must promptly publish action points,
decisions and any resolutions to constituency members. It is recommended
that prompt publication means within a reasonable period and a guideline
is between 72 hours and 1 week of the relevant meeting.
        b. All Executive Committees must publish to constituency members
their rules and procedures, decision making process and criteria.
        c. A limit of two years per term and a maximum {NUMBER OF
CONSECUTIVE} of two terms per office being a total maximum of four years
in any office (hereafter Term Limits) shall apply to members of
Executive Committees {AND MUST BE DESCRIBED IN THE GROUP CHARTER}.
{GROUP CHARTERS MUST ALSO HAVE PROCEDURES FOR REELECTING MEMBERS} A
member who has  {HAVE} served two {THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF} consecutive
terms on the Executive Committee must remain out of office for one full
term prior to serving any subsequent term as a member of the Executive
Committee {IN THE SAME POSITION). {ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS POLICY WOULD
REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE MEMBERSHIP.} {MUST ALSO BE OUTLINED IN THE GROUP
CHARTER.}

         

        Thank you,

        Krista

         

        Krista Papac 
        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>  

         

        "Software Escrow for Dummies" - order your complimentary copy
today at www.ironmountain.com/escrowfordummies

         

        New Gartner Report: Successful Software Escrow Requires Planning
and Negotiation

        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/1
70569.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 Julie Hedlund
        Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:21 AM
        To: gnso-osc-csg

        
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 07 March 2010 Nairobi
Meeting

         

        Dear Work Team members,

        
        
        Here are the actions/summary from yesterday's meeting.  Please
let me know if you have any changes or questions.  Our next meeting will
be held next Friday, 26 March at 1300 UTC/0600 PST/0900 EST for one
hour.  The actions and summary are included on the wiki at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.
Final agreed-upon changes to the Task 1, Subtask 1 document are on the
wiki at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_
operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1 and the Task 1, Subtask 2 document
at: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_and_stake_holder_g
roup_operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_2.  Changes are shown in ALL
CAPS, strikeout, and curly brackets.  Thank you very much.
        
        Best regards,
        
        Julie
        
        Action Items:
        1. Work Team members are requested to review the "Revised
Language in Task 1, Subtask 2 through the end of Part II, Section 8 and
provide any comments by the next meeting on Friday 26 March.
        2. Section 4 Elections Paragraph a: Krista Papac agreed to
suggest alternate language.
        3. Section 5 Voting:

        *       Paragraph a and b: Mary Wong and Zahid Jamil are
requested to review the revised language. 
        *       New paragraph d: Work Team members are requested to
consider and comment on the language. 

        4. Section 8 Policy:

        *       Paragraph a: Victoria McEvedy is requested to provide
clarification on the meaning of the statement. 
        *       Paragraph d: Mary Wong is requested to provide alternate
language for Work Team consideration. 

        
        Summary:

        *       Task 1, Subtask 1: Work Team members agreed to the final
version of the revised recommendations. 
        *       Task 1, Subtask 2: Work Team members reviewed and
discussed changes through Part II, Section 8 Policy. 

________________________________

        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 or 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. 

         

________________________________

        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 or 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. 

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4956 (20100318)__________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4956 (20100318)__________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com
        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4956 (20100318) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 4956 (20100318) __________
        
        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 or 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.