<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
- To: "Claudio Di Gangi" <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Harris, Anthony" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:00:36 -0400
Thanks Claudio. Considering what you describe below, it seems to me
that we are spending way too much time discussing the makeup of 'policy
commitees'. In my opinion, the key areas where the benefits of term
limits apply are: GNSO Councilors, Executive Team membership and
Officers to the extent that the latter is not covered in the first two
areas.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:27 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Victoria McEvedy; Harris, Anthony; Rafik
Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010
Meetingly
Chuck,
To some extent it's a mixture of both. The IPC Bylaws set forth
the following responsibility for its Officers:
IV. IPC Officers
(C) Powers
(2) In the exercise of its powers the IPC officers shall be
guided by the decisions, including those on administrative and financial
matters, adopted by the IPCC. The IPC officers shall - with the help of
volunteers and special committees - in particular:
(h) organize the substantive work of the IPC by establishing a
timetable for the progress of the work, by designating the committees to
carry out the preparatory work and by submitting draft reports to the
IPCC for approval;
----------------------
So the teams are formed under the direction of the Officers, to
assist the Officers in developing and organizing the substantive work of
the constituency. They are usually formed on a specific topic area, such
as RAA, new gTLDs, GNSO Improvements, etc. They exist to develop IPC
position statements and work product. However, volunteers sometimes step
forward to work on issues that are of interest to them, for example when
topics are posted for public comment on the ICANN website. In those
cases, the Officers may task those interested volunteers to develop work
product independently. So the Bylaws do not require the same policy
development process to be followed in all cases, but provides the
Officers flexibility to respond based on the specifics of the situation
at hand.
claudio
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:44 PM
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; Harris, Anthony; Rafik
Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010
Meetingly
Thanks Claudio. Are these committees standing committees for
indefinite periods of time or are they formed with specific tasks and
timelines?
Chuck
________________________________
From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:34 PM
To: 'Victoria McEvedy'; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony;
Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March
2010 Meetingly
Yes, there are teams that work on ongoing policy matters
& issues. All final outcomes/work products are shared for approval
within the constituency, usually without voting. For example, the IPC
has a Committee on the Future that is responsible for issues such as
GNSO improvements, etc.
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:04 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi;
Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March
2010 Meetingly
Both the NCUC and the IPC have them -I believe-based on
the tables we prepared. Perhaps Claudio can confirm as to the IPC. Its
membership and actions are not published --even within the Group.
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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 07 April 2010 20:47
To: Victoria McEvedy; Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi;
Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March
2010 Meetingly
We are spending a lot of time talking about 'policy
committees'. I understand that within the broader GNSO context (PDP
WGs, DTs, WTs). In the case of the RySG I don't believe we have ever
formed a group called a policy committee. We often solicit volunteers
to draft a first cut of a policy statement for SG review and
consideration but the whole SG then provides input and expresses support
or lack of support or provides minority statements, all of which are
recorded in any policy statements the RySG submits. Do other SGs or
Constituencies actually have standing 'policy committees'?
Chuck
________________________________
From: Victoria McEvedy
[mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes,
Chuck; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26
March 2010 Meetingly
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
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
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
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
__________ 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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5007 (20100407)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|