Re: {posible spam} Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

SS,
my suggestion of a summary written by both of you had only the intention of
facilitating comprehension of the minority report, only that.
I am not sure if I understand you completely as English is my second
language and I have limitations, could you please clarify: "I had, several
times, asked that staff should put up supporting papers for agenda related
issues for each meeting.It was so essential in those early days. You never
supported it."
What are you referring that I never supported? We have always worked as a
team, so I will appreciate your clarification on this regard.
Regards
Olga


2010/5/16 SS Kshatriy <sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx>

> Dear Olga,
> Allow me to be a little blunt about this issue.
> It is a clear step of scuttling the issue of minority reports--particularly
> coming it from Head of GNSO.
> You are looking for the convinience of higher-up bodies that may be out of
> place.
> --
> Think of our WT early meetings. I had, several times, asked that staff
> should put up supporting papers for agenda related issues for each
> meeting.It was so essential in those early days. You never supported it.
> Now you want to spoon-feed higher-up bodies, without them  asking for it.
> So, my request is that let the minority reports go the way they are and let
> those higher bodies handle it the way they want.
> --
> If the interest is to scuttle minority reports, it is very easy. You will
> easily collect majority votes not to send them, because they are not
> majority reports. Question can arise if WT is empowered to meddle with
> someones' reports.
> --
> However, there is one way if it satisfies someone's ego.
> I will request Victoria to reduce it a little for that purpose.
> best regards,
> SS
>
> S. S. KSHATRIYA
>
> --- On *Sun, 5/16/10, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: {posible spam} Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report
> To: victoria@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Julie Hedlund" <
> julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-osc-csg" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 12:30 PM
>
>
> Hi,
> as a general comment, I find useful those executive summaries that are
> included as first parts in long documents.
> in this case such a summary may help understanding a document which is long
> and also for the future reference it may result useful.
> I also understand that those who sent the minority report do not want it
> edited.
> Victoria, SS, would you consider preparing yourselves a summary that could
> help the general understanding of the minority report?
> Are there other suggestions from our working team on this regard?
> Thanks and regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/5/16 
> <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
>> My objection remains ---you propose extraction and in effect
>> trunciation/editing. That is not acceptable. There are no word limits for
>> Minority Reports nor style formalities and we are entitled to submit it in
>> the form of our choice. I'm sorry if you think it too long or would have
>> preferred a different approach. We want our report read in full and taken as
>> is. We are not submitting enumerated minority recomendations.
>> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: *"Gomes, Chuck" 
>> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>
>> *Date: *Sun, 16 May 2010 08:27:03 -0400
>> *To: 
>> *<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>>;
>> Olga 
>> Cavalli<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>>  *Cc: *Julie 
>> Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>;
>> gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report
>>
>>  You misunderstand Victoria.  I am not suggesting that the minority
>> report should not be referenced as submitted or that any changes should be
>> made to your report.  I am suggesting an additional document be prepared
>> that would make it very easy for the WT, the OSC and the Council to compare
>> your recommendations to those in the WT  report in a concise and accurate
>> manner.  For me this would make it much easier for me to simply see where
>> the actual variations between the two recommendations are and whether they
>> are justifiable in my view or need additional consideration.  In my opinion,
>> your document does not do that for several reasons: 1) it is very long and
>> hence many who are not close to this issue will not read it thoroughly; 2)
>> it does not concisely list your recommendations but instead incorporates
>> them in the midst of lots of background and your justification; 3) it does
>> not accurately list all of the WT final recommendations or discuss other
>> related GNSO requirements.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>
>
> *From:* 
> victoria@xxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>[mailto:
> victoria@xxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:09 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli
>
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report
>
>
>
> I would like to say and I think SS would agree that we would prefer this
> task not be undertaken and ask that the minority report be submitted just as
> it is to be read in full---and not extracted from or condensed or edited or
> trunciated in anyway whatsoever. Thank you. Victoria
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Gomes, Chuck" 
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>
>
> *Date: *Sun, 16 May 2010 07:46:22 -0400
>
> *To: *Victoria 
> McEvedy<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>>;
> Olga 
> Cavalli<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> *Cc: *Julie 
> Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>;
> gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report
>
>
>
> Olga,
>
>
>
> After having read the minority report, I would like to make a suggestion
> that I think would be beneficial to the CSG WT as we finalize our work, to
> the OSC when they review our final report, and to the Council when they take
> action on the recommendations that are sent forward by the OSC.  I suggest
> that Julie (if possible) prepare a complete and concise table that lists the
> recommendations in the minority report with the corresponding recommendation
> from the WT report as applicable.  To the extent possible:
> ·         Recommendations should be quoted verbatim from the applicable
> document if that can be done briefly.
> ·         In cases where recommendations include multiple parts, they
> should be broken out in those separate parts if that makes it easier to
> compare the elements.
> ·         Document references should be included for all recommendations
> from both documents to make it easy for anyone to go to the documents and
> read the full text (e.g., Section #, Page #, Line # as appropriate).
> ·         The comparison table should not include any rationale for
> recommendations but readers should be encourage to read the full text; this
> will hopefully allow readers to compare the recommendations on their face
> value and make their own analysis and form their own questions.
>
> I fully understand that this is a time consuming task for Julie, but I
> strongly believe that it will save lots of time for everyone involved as the
> recommendations move forward through the next steps of the process.
>
>
>
> I welcome other thoughts on this.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* 
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>[mailto:
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Victoria McEvedy
> *Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2010 9:48 AM
> *To:* Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report
>
>
>
> Dear Chair and WG,
>
>
>
> Please find attached by way of submission a Joint Minority Report by SS 
> Kshatriy
> and me.
>
>
>
> Julie, I wonder if you could help us with some of the missing links.
>
>
>
> Thank you and best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: 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<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>[mailto:
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* 11 May 2010 23:56
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 07 May 2010 Meeting
>
>
>
> Claudio,
> thanks for your comments and suggestions.
> I agree with them.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/5/10 Claudio Di Gangi 
> <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> Olga,
>
>
>
> Thank you. Please see the attached red-line, where I made three edits.
>
>
>
> One covers a change we agreed to on a work team call: to delete the Term
> limit for GNSO Councilors within this document.
>
>
>
> The reason is because term limits for Councilors are already specified in
> the ICANN Bylaws, so we wanted to avoid confusion with those provisions. For
> reference, I think Michael was chairing that particular work team call.
>
>
>
> My other two edits are summarized below, and are non-substantive.
>
>
> 1.      I added “for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies” to the
> title of the document so it is more clear as to where this applies.
>
>
> 2.      I made an edit to clarify a sentence in the background section
> that I found vague because it referred to Groups existing within the “GNSO
> Council”, not the broader GNSO. This sentence now reads:
>
>
>
> “When the BGC WG made its initial recommendations, the concept of
> Stakeholder Groups (SGs) as part of the GNSO structure had not yet been
> implemented.  Since then SGs have been implemented within the GNSO structure
> along with Constituencies.”
>
>
>
> Subject to the correction identified above, I am OK approving this
> document. Thanks to all for their time & hard work on the effort.
>
>
>
> claudio
>
>
>
> *From:* 
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>[mailto:
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* Friday, May 07, 2010 2:25 PM
> *To:* Julie Hedlund
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 07 May 2010 Meeting
>
>
>
> Thanks Julie for this.
>
>
> Please note:
>
> *Work Team members are requested to review Task 1 document and to provide
> any final comments and minority reports, if any, by Friday, 14 May.
>
> *In the case that you agree with the Task 1 text as it is now and do not
> want to send minority reports or suggest changes, please send an email to
> the list with this confirmation.
>
> Have a nice weekend
>
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/5/7 Julie Hedlund 
> <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> Dear Work Team members,
>
> Here are the actions from today’s meeting.  (You will find the summary on
> the wiki at: *
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team*.)
>  Please let me know if you have any changes or questions.  Our next meeting
> will be held next* Friday, 14 May at 1300 UTC/0600 PST/0900 EST for one
> hour.*
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *Action Items:
> Task 1:* Actions:
> 1.  Olga asked Julie to make the changes and to circulate the revised
> document. (Done, See attached document.)
> 2.  *Work Team members are requested to review the document and to provide
> any final comments and minority reports, if any, by Friday, 14 May.
> *
> *Task 2:*
> Debbie will revise the framework document based on comments received from
> Work Team members and circulate the revised document for review.
>
> *Summary:
> *See the wiki at: *
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5106 (20100511)__________
>
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5114 (20100514)__________
>
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5114 (20100514)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>