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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Claudio for clarification.

Rafik
2010/3/27 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

>  Rafik,
>
>
>
> Generally, a grandfather clause is a short term exception to a new rule.
>
>
>
> In this case, the grandfather clause would allow existing office holders to
> complete their current terms of office without application of the new rule.
> For example, if a particular Group has elected its leadership under a
> five-year term, and these office holders were only in year 2...they would be
> permitted to complete their service under the terms of which they were
> elected. Once existing office holders complete their terms, the new rule
> would start applying.
>
>
>
> The idea is just to provide a safeguard to minimize unintended consequences
> which may result when new rules are created.
>
>
>
> Hope this clarifies.
>
>
>
> Claudio
>
>
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 3:54 PM
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; Papac, Krista; 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 Claudio,
>
> I would like to just to know what is the meaning of grandfather clause?
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2010/3/26 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
>
> 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)
>  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-report-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
>
>
>
> *“Software Escrow for Dummies”** - order your complimentary copy t*oday 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/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 *
>
> [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:* 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® 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 *
>
> [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 *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® 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
>
>
>
> *“Software Escrow for Dummies”** - order your complimentary copy t*oday 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/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
>
>
>
> *“Software Escrow for Dummies”** - order your complimentary copy t*oday 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/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 n*ext
> 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_group_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. *
>
>
>
>
>