<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
- To: "Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:39:59 -0400
I have conflicting meetings but will do my best to participate. I also
may be late and I have a critical meeting right after the CSG call.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:37 AM
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: Olga Cavalli; Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; Gomes,
Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010
Meetingly
Hi I will attend the call but will be a little late.
Thx
Michael Young
Afilias
D:416-673-4109
M:647-289-1220
On 2010-04-09, at 4:05, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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 < <mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
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 <
<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
<http://www.ipconstituency.org/officers.htm>
http://www.ipconstituency.org/officers.htm
From: Victoria McEvedy [mailto:
<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
<http://www.mcevedy.eu> 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:
<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> 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:
<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 and 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 work 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
<http://www.mcevedy.eu> 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:
<mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> 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:
<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
<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
<http://www.mcevedy.eu> 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:
<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
<http://www.mcevedy.eu> 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:
<mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
<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
<http://www.mcevedy.eu> 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:
<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
<mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|