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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I suggest that we take some time in the call tomorrow to finalize this text.
Those interested in preparing a final language for the motion plaease try to
join the call.
Julie, could you be so kind to prepare a version with different suggested
languages so we can review it?
I hope this is not too late for you and makes it complicated, if this is the
case we will manage somehow.
Best regards
Olga

2010/7/22 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>