Hi Olga,
Unfortunately, I am not going to attend today conf call, I would
like to comment the document which be reviewed, later.
just for clarification, my understanding is that we recommend term
limit for Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and Council
Representatives as suggested previously as compromise by Chuck. I
still believe that for such positions there will be enough
candidates and volunteers,.
Regards
Rafik
2010/4/9 Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
thanks for the exchange of ideas in this list.
I encourage those who expressed different views and concepts to
think of possible texts to be included into our document.
Remember please that we have a due date to finish at least Task 1,
our goal is to review the rest of the document in our conference
call tomorrow.
Looking forward to talking to you soon.
Best regards
Olga
2010/4/8 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
http://www.ipconstituency.org/officers.htm
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:12 AM
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
The bylaw---which I read in detail, did not answer my questions.
I’d be happy to direct them to the secretary –who is that?
Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
<image001.jpg>
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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 April 2010 15:08
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
Victoria,
I refer you to the IPC bylaws:
as I indicated yesterday the Officers either put out a call for
volunteers when new issues are posted for public comment or
sometimes refer back to teams or individuals that have expressed
interest in ongoing policy issues, such as new gTLDs, RAA, and GNSO
Improvements.
When submitting comments the IPC does not publish the names of
authors/contributors. Should you request additional details I refer
you to the IPC secretary.
claudio
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:49 PM
To: Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
How many teams are there? Could you tell us their names? How often
is membership refreshed?
I’m actually on that Committee of the Future ---there was one call a
nd nothing further was heard of it.
This raises the question as to where the real Policy work does happen?
I’m afraid it seems to me that it occurs behind closed doors—in
some magic inner circle.
It is correct that a day before a submission a paper will be
circulated ---but with no briefing or discussion/explanation of the
options or reasons for strategy.
Recently and following my request –we are advised who drafted them
–but not the name of the Committees. The process of allocation of w
ork to a Committee is also not disclosed.
Regards,
Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
<image001.jpg>
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: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 07 April 2010 21:34
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 m
embership and actions are not published --even within the Group.
Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
<image001.jpg>
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
<image001.jpg>
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
To: 'Victoria McEvedy' ; Gomes, Chuck ; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Julie Hedlund ; gnso-osc-csg
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 o
wn 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 ident
ified in GNSO improvements. In this regard, a one-size-fit-all rule
on participation may produce disparate impact since the groups repr
esent 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 consi
stent with the BGC recommendations for the executive leadership, i.e
. the elected officers. In outside parlance, term limits are often l
imited 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 gen
erally – 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 discu
ssion on the distinguishing features of the Policy Committees in rel
ation to these.
Regards,
Victoria McEvedy
Principal
McEvedys
Solicitors and Attorneys
<image001.jpg>
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