Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team Recommendations

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck,

Rafik

2010/7/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  No Rafik.  Board approval is not required.  The SIC and Board will simply
> be informed of the action.  Of course, the SIC and Board could always come
> back and say that that the recommendations do not satisfy the Board’s
> recommendations and ask for more work.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:12 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg; Julie Hedlund
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> just for clarification, after adoption of the motion and recommendation by
> GNSO council, the document will be passed to SIC and board for approval?
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2010/7/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Please see below Victoria.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:58 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg; Julie Hedlund
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> Chuck –if that is the case then perhaps the BGC should be tasked with
> determining compliance/enforcement instead of the GNSO Council?  It
> certainly cannot be fair to put Staff in the position of enforcers for some
> of the structural and other reasons already aired.
>
> *[Gomes, Chuck] That is not a typical Board member responsibility.  That
> it is the kind of task that Directors would assign to staff.  Compliance
> enforcement by ICANN has been a very important concern in recent years; that
> has mostly related to registrar agreements but it would seem to me to apply
> to SG/Constituency charters as well.*
>
>
>
> What models are there within ICANN for follow up and enforcement of changes
> and what routes for stakeholders to raise complaints as to compliance (other
> than the Ombudsman)?
>
> *[Gomes, Chuck] There are specific mechanisms in place for complaints
> about registrars and Whois problems, but I am not aware of one for these
> kind of complaints.  Maybe Julie can comment on that. *
>
>
>
> I do think a deadline should be given for the Charters to be amended by.
>
> *[Gomes, Chuck] That is not in the Council’s hands.  It is in the Board’s
> court.*
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 21 July 2010 00:44
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> Victoria,
>
>
>
> The Council is not a governing body; it is a manager of the policy
> development process.  The Council has the task of approving the Constituency
> & SG Operating Procedures but has no responsibility to enforce them.  The
> Board has the responsibility of approving the Constituency and Stakeholder
> Group charters so it will ultimately be up to the Board, with staff support,
> to decide whether the charters appropriately reflect the Procedures as well
> as to enforce compliance of the charters.  If the motion was worded as you
> suggested, it could guarantee that certain members of the GNSO community
> would be up in arms.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* victoria@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:19 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> But these are all GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups ---so within
> that SO ---in relation to which the Council is the governing body. Please
> explain.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Date: *Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:35:52 -0400
>
> *To: *Victoria McEvedy<victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>; Julie Hedlund<
> julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>; Olga Cavalli<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Cc: *gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> Sorry Victoria.  This will not work because the Council has no authority
> over SGs and Constituencies.
>
>
>
> Julie – I suggested one word amendment choices that I think would work.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Victoria McEvedy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:15 PM
> *To:* Julie Hedlund; Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> Julie –suggested amendment:
>
>
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves [the CSG-WT majority
> recommendations [and/or] the minority recommendations].   GNSO Stakeholder
> Groups and Constituencies are to implement mandatory recommendations and any
> non-mandatory recommendations as adopted by their general body on a vote by
> the full membership and shall incorporate the changes in Charters and any
> other relevant documents, if any, within two months of the date of this
> resolution. Compliance with this recommendation to be within the
> jurisdiction of and supervised by the GNSO Council:
> ·         *Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation
> Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and  <
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.pdf>
>
> Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.pdf>
>  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:* Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 20 July 2010 16:28
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> Dear Victoria,
>
> Please do suggest language.  Staff language was merely a suggestion.
>
> Best,
>
> Julie
>
>
> On 7/20/10 11:15 AM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thank you Julie.
>
> The obvious issue with that language is that it renders every single
> recommendation entirely optional and non-voluntary—and the whole exercise
> nothing more than advisory or for reference—despite the fact that after much
> discussion particular recommendations were agreed *by the majority* as “*
> must*” recommendations and the balance ‘*should*’ recommendations.
>
> It’s currently a motion for each group to carry on as these please and a
> recommendation for the status quo.  I don’t think that’s an acceptable
> outcome after our 18 months of work.
>
> I would suggest that the recommendations should be accepted as the ‘musts’
> or ‘shoulds’ as recommended in each case.
>
> I would be happy to provide some language ---or perhaps the Staff would
> like to do that in the first instance.
>
> Best,
>
>
> 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
> *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:* Julie Hedlund 
> [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* 20 July 2010 16:03
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
> Dear Victoria,
>
> Staff included that suggested language for consideration in the motion
> since Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups may need to amend their charters
> based on the recommendations in the report.
>
> Thanks,
> Julie
>
>
> On 7/20/10 10:54 AM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear WT,
>
> Could someone explain what “for evaluation in amending their charters, as
> appropriate” means? What is the origin of this language?
>
> Thank you and 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
> *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<owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* 20 July 2010 14:54
> *To:* Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
> Dear Olga,
>
> Here is a draft motion for you to consider.  Please feel free to edit it,
> of course.  Let me know if I can help in any way.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *DRAFT RESOLUTION:  Final Council Action on GCOT & CSG Deliverables
> *
> WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 23 June 2010 meeting in Brussels,
> accepted a set of deliverables submitted by the GNSO Council Operations
> Work Team (GCOT) <*
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team*>  and the 
> Constituency
> and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSG-WT) <*
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team*> ;
>
> WHEREAS, a twenty-one (21) day Public Comment Forum <*
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gcot-csg-recommendations*>
> completed between 28 June 2010 and 18 July 2010 and a Staff Summary and
> Analysis <*
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gcot-csg-recommendations/msg00001.html*> has
> been published;
> WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the these deliverables
> as soon as possible after the end of the public comment period;
>
> WHEREAS, there were no public comments submitted that would amend any of
> the GCOT or CSG-WT recommendations;
>
> NOW, BE IT THEREFORE:
>
> RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the following set of GCOT
> documents, without further modification, and directs Staff to publish a new
> version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) containing these sections and
> chapters:
> ·         Section 2.1-Council Member Term Limits <*
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-term-limits-24may10-en.pdf
> *>
> ·         Section 2.4-Board Seat Elections <*
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-board-seat-elections-24may10-en.pdf
> *>
> ·         Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies <*
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-absences-vacancies-11jun10-en.pdf
> *>
> ·         Chapter 4.0-Voting <*
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-voting-11jun10-en.pdf
> *>
> ·         Chapter 5.0-Statements and Disclosures of Interest <*
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-soi-doi-11jun10-en.pdf
> *>
> o   Note that two sections, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, are not approved pending
> further Staff action to be determined.  These sections are footnoted in the
> document as “inactive” until subsequently approved by the OSC and Council.
>
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council approves the following CSG-WT
> deliverable and directs Staff to provide these recommendations to GNSO
> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies for evaluation in amending their
> charters, as appropriate:
> ·         *Recommended Common Operating Principles and Participation
> Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and  <
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.pdf>
>
> Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.pdf>
>
> *
> RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GCOT has successfully completed its assignments,
> as chartered by the Operations Steering Committee (OSC); therefore, the GNSO
> Council hereby discharges the GCOT with its gratitude and appreciation for
> the team’s dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/19/10 4:36 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sounds good.  Hopefully a Councilor will make the motion and another
> Councilor on the WT will second it.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Monday, July 19, 2010 3:27 PM
> *To:* Olga Cavalli
> *Cc:* gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
> Dear Olga,
>
> I will forward the draft motion to you as soon as it is ready.  I think we
> can get it to you by tomorrow.
>
> Best,
>
> Julie
>
>
> On 7/19/10 3:05 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Julie, let me know once the  motion is ready so we can move it.
> Best
> Olga
>
> 2010/7/19 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> Dear Work Team members,
>
> The public comment forum on the Task 1 recommendations ended yesterday.
>  There was only one comment and it was not substantive.  I have produced a
> summary and analysis that is available here: *
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gcot-csg-recommendations/msg00001.html*.  In
> particular, the comment did not address the Work Team’s report.  It related
> to the ICANN comment process in general.
>
> The next step is for the GNSO Council to approve the report.  Staff will
> prepare a draft motion for consideration.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5295 (20100720)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5295 (20100720)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5295 (20100720)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5295 (20100720)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5295 (20100720)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5296 (20100720)__________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5296 (20100720) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5297 (20100721) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>