RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly

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

Victoria,
 
It is not true that reasons have not been given.  It would be more
accurate to say that you disagree with the reasons that have been given.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:42 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010
Meetingly
        
        

        There has been repeated objection to the application of any
proposed standard rules to Policy committees ---but no reasons for this
have been articulated and I for one do not support their exclusion. They
lie at the heart of the work of the Groups.  

         

         

        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 Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: 06 April 2010 14:33
        To: Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
        Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010
Meetingly

         

        It may be helpful to realize that the concept of Executive
Committees is now embedded in all the SG charters so there is a
particularly significant role for these committees. Also, the concept of
Executive Committees was not previously built in to the Constituency
concept except indiviudally by some constituencies so the BGC probably
didn't directly focus on these committees when recommending term limits.

         

        With that understanding, a reasonable compromise might be to
apply term limits to Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and
Council Representatives and recommend them as a best practice for other
committees and subgroups.

         

        Chuck

                 

________________________________

                From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:56 AM
                To: Claudio Di Gangi
                Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
                Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March
2010 Meeting

                Hi Claudio, 

                 

                I am in favor of more strong wording, best practice
looks really optional and I am afraid that there won't be willingness to
apply it in groups. 

                for policy committees, they should be temporary by their
nature if my understanding is correct. 

                to apply term limit has to be applied for executive
committees.

                 

                Regards

                 

                Rafik

                 

                2010/4/6 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

                Rafik,
                
                thanks, i appreciate your response.
                
                would you recommend the best practice for term limits
apply only to the group's executive committee or to which group
committees?
                
                under what basis is that distinction made?
                
                claudio
                
                ________________________________________
                From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
                Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:40 PM

                To: Claudio Di Gangi
                Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
                Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March
2010 Meeting

                Thanks Claudio for your explanation, but I think that we
need to improve the current situation and recommend common best
practices. I may understand that few constituencies can face problem to
have people volunteering (even if I have real doubts about those facts),
I think that those constituencies have to work internally to improve the
situation and not asking for lowering standards.
                I am not sure how the WT will handle that point, but I
am clearly not in favor of what you suggest.
                @Olga @Michael I think that we need to make decision
about this point and not block the on going review of the rest of
document because the tight schedule  we have
                
                Regards
                
                Rafik

                2010/4/2 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:
cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>>

                Rafik,
                
                Just to further expand on my last reply to you:
                
                In light of the complexities of the issues that fall
under ICANN's remit, it may be necessary or of great value to a Group to
have a volunteer serve on the executive committee or policy committee
for several consecutive terms before they have enough experience and
knowledge etc. to serve as Chair or in another similar leadership
position. That is if the Group is fortunate enough to have such
volunteers who are willing and able to dedicate the time and energy
necessary to serve in these positions in the first instance.
                
                No matter how representative a group may be of its
community, one cannot assume that there will be endless pool of willing
volunteers to serve in these positions. On the contrary, what likely
matters more is what community or interest is being represented by these
Groups and how directly or indirectly ICANN's policies impact them. Each
group represents significantly varying interests that are impacted by
ICANN's policies is a markedly different way, so this directly impacts
participation. Therefore rules restricting participation on committees
can impact Groups very unequally, and this is separate and aside from
the issue of representativeness.
                
                Therefore, I believe we need to thread very carefully
here. We have agreed to establishing term limits for constituency
officers, which implements the BGC recommendation we were tasked with
addressing. If groups want to expand term limits to other areas of their
operations based on their specifics, that is of course something they
are always able to do through their charters. If it's an issue our work
team feels very strongly about, then I suggest we consider including it
as a best practice.
                
                Hope this was helpful.
                
                claudio

                From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:36 AM
                To: Claudio Di Gangi
                Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
                Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March
2010 Meeting
                
                Hi Claudio,
                I am confused about your suggestion as the limit will be
meaningless if it is not applied to executive committee.
                if there is fears about volunteering, that issue is more
linked to representativeness level of Group.
                 "but I would not extend the term limit to policy and
executive committees. This is consistent with the BGC recommendation
which we are tasked with implementing, which states: ""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."
                 and after the effort done for II.8 I am not in favor of
deletion.
                Regards
                
                Rafik

                 

        
        
        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 5004 (20100406) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com



        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 5004 (20100406) __________
        
        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
        
        http://www.eset.com