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

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

I think the issue is not just limited to the number of willing volunteers but 
also about the level of experience, knowledge, understanding and expertise 
volunteers have of ICANN and the evolving & complex issues under consideration. 
There is also the question of the potential impact of rules restricting 
participation on the effectiveness and efficiency of a group's operations, and 
the issue of the right to self-determination in group's setting their own 
operating rules on these issues to reflect their unique aspects, 
characteristics, communities, etc. - as long as consistent with the ICANN 
bylaws and the common principles the group's agree to as identified in GNSO 
improvements.  In this regard, a one-size-fit-all rule on participation may 
produce disparate impact since the groups represent completely different 
interests and communities, etc.

So while I think it may be easy to just say impose term limits on all aspects, 
the impact of such rules need to be considered against the potential need or 
benefit of term limits.

That's being said, we came to agreement on setting term limits consistent with 
the BGC recommendations for the executive leadership, i.e. the elected 
officers. In outside parlance, term limits are often limited to the executive 
branch only in many cases. For example, see efforts to impose term limits on 
the Congress in the United States.

Hope helpful.

claudio

From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:43 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

Chuck -while people have talked about the shortage of volunteers generally - 
this applies to all committees/and Groups generally.

Based on objections raised on WT calls it seems there are views that Policy 
Committees involve special concerns as to transparency and now to term limits 
and I don't believe there has been any real discussion on the distinguishing 
features of the Policy Committees in relation to these.

Regards,


Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD639.926C6E20]

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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 07 April 2010 00:34
To: Victoria McEvedy; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly

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
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD639.926C6E20]

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<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto: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><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


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5005 (20100406) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5005 (20100406) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com