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

[Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I note that is your view Chuck and that you have the answers you wanted.



Myself I would like a response to the issues I raised in my email of yesterday 
before we move on.





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: 08 April 2010 00:01
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.  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

      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 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

         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



         __________ 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



      __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 5008 (20100407) __________

      The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

      http://www.eset.com