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

[Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tony -I don't think anyone here fails to understand what a Policy 
Committee is and isn't.  Again -I don't think repeating the volunteers point 
improves it.





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: 07 April 2010 17:56
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly



Claudio,



Thanks for this clear response, which I support in it's

entirety. ICANN's impressive growth since the days

of it's launching in 1999, has been possible because

interest groups were allowed leeway to self-organize

within a framework of constituencies in the manner

tha worked best for them. Rigid and bureaucratic

straightjackets have never been the norm in the

ICANN environs, and I hesitate to conclude that

this has changed today.



Two things caught my attention in the recent e-mail

exchange flow:



I noticed a certain skepticism about the question of

difficulty in unearthing volunteers in constituencies,

who would replace officers obliged to step down to

comply with term limits. Well, be as it may, this is

frequently a fact of life. Companies and entities may

be willing to participate in a constituency as members,

but not many would commit their representatives to

engage as officers (sit on Council, Stakeholder Group

Executive Committee, or Constituency Executive

Committee). The reason? Simple - hours of workload,

F2F meetings, teleconferences at unseemly hours for

some, etc.



With regards to comments that emphasize the need for

"proposed standard rules to Policy committees", perhaps

we should venture a reminder that, within a Constituency,

an Executive Committee is not a Policy Committee, but

simply a steering group that coordinates the ongoing

functions of the Constituency, and ensures the membership

has all due opportunities to discuss ICANN issues, and

provide consensus input to the Councillors, and as of now

the Stakeholder Group Executive Committee, on policy matters

as they emerge in the GNSO.



Tony Harris

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

   From: Claudio Di Gangi<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

   To: 'Victoria McEvedy'<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> ; Gomes, 
Chuck<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Rafik Dammak<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>

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

   Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:38 AM

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



   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: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: 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: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 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



   __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5007 (20100407) __________

   The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

   http://www.eset.com