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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
my reference to a executive summary was for the minority report itself.
Victora has agreed to send a new version of the document so I suggest
waiting for it and then review how to move forward.
Regards
Olga

2010/5/17 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Olga,
>
>
>
> Please note that I was not suggesting that this be included in the
> Executive Summary because I think it would be too long for that, but it
> could be referenced in the executive summary just like the minority report.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:31 PM
> *To:* victoria@xxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: {posible spam} Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Minority Report
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> 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>
>
> *Date: *Sun, 16 May 2010 08:27:03 -0400
>
> *To: *<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-osc-csg<
> 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 [mailto: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>
>
> *Date: *Sun, 16 May 2010 07:46:22 -0400
>
> *To: *Victoria McEvedy<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; Olga Cavalli<
> olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Cc: *Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-osc-csg<
> 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 [mailto: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 [mailto: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>
>
> 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 [mailto: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>
>
> 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
>
>
>