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

[<HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know I wasn't on the WT during the lengthy discussions related to the
Task 1 recommendations, but I agree with Krista's and Claudio's
comments.

Debbie

 

 

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Papac, Krista
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Olga Cavalli; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg; Julie Hedlund
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

 

 

Olga,

 

I cannot participate in tomorrow's call, but will participate on the
list.

 

At this time I am in agreement with what was proposed in the attached
message.  It is very straightforward and should remain that way.
Further, I support Chuck's comments on process and implementation of the
WT's recommendations and do not wish to complicate what should be a
simple task any further.

 

Krista Papac 
Iron Mountain Digital 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:34 AM
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg; Julie Hedlund
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
Recommendations

 

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 

 

 

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(r) 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.p
df> 
Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.p
df>  

 

 

 

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] 
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] 
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]
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-24may1
0-en.pdf>  
*         Section 2.4-Board Seat Elections <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-board-seat-electio
ns-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.p
df> 
Recommendations on a GNSO Database of Community Members <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-csg-recommendations-task-27may10-en.p
df>  

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]
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

 

 

 



The information contained in this email message and its attachments is
intended only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s)
named above, unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission
of email over the Internet is not a secure communications medium. If you
are requesting or have requested the transmittal of personal data, as
defined in applicable privacy laws by means of email or in an attachment
to email, you must select a more secure alternate means of transmittal
that supports your obligations to protect such personal data. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient and/or you have
received this email in error, you must take no action based on the
information in this email and you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, misuse or copying or disclosure of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message.