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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will also be blunt SS: 

·         Are you afraid of others seeing a simple and concise comparison of 
the two sets of recommendations?

·         Regardless of whether such a comparison would be provided for use by 
the OSC and the Council, as a member of the CSG WT, I would personally benefit 
from such a comparison; now I do not think it should be done just for me 
because it will take considerable effort.  I will defer to the rough consensus 
in the WT in that regard.

·         To suggest that such a request is “scuttling the issue of minority 
reports” is extremely hard for me to understand.  Making sure that the 
differences of recommendations are clearly understood can serve two contrasting 
purposes: 1) it can provide a way to help us justify the rough consensus 
decisions made by the WT; 2) it can provide a way for us to see if we 
inappropriately missed something and make further adjustments.  Are you opposed 
to making sure that the differences in the recommendations are clearly 
understood?

 

Chuck

 

From: SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:00 PM
To: victoria@xxxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: Re: {posible spam} Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report

 

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 

 

 

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 <http://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 <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 <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 <http://www.eset.com/>