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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Claudio
Regards
Olga

2010/7/22 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

> Olga,
>
> i support the motion language below which is very straight forward.
>
> i prefer not to put forward a motion that injects subjective interpretation
> of the recommendations, or other unnecessary complications
>
> claudio
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Olga Cavalli [olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:33 AM
> To: Julie Hedlund
> Cc: Chuck Gomes; Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Public Comments on CSG Work Team
> Recommendations
>
> Thanks Julie.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/7/21 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Dear Olga,
>
> Motions are due not later than Wednesday, 28 July.
>
> Best regards,
> Julie
>
>
>
> On 7/21/10 9:44 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx<
> http://olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Julie, I am ok with this version.
> Comments are welcome.
> Chuck could you please remind me which is the deadline for submitting
> motions to the GNSO before our next conference call?
> Best regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/7/20 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<http://julie.hedlund@
> icann.org>>
> Chuck and Olga,
>
> Here is the revised motion with the wording Chuck has suggested (below in
> red -- “use” instead of “evaluation”).  I also deleted the last resolved
> that dissolved the GCOT since there may be remaining work with the
> procedures.  Thanks, Julie
>
>
> 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 use 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
> >
>
> On 7/20/10 5:37 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx<
> http://olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> <http://olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I agree with Chuck.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/7/20 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<http://cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <
> http://cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> 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<http://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> <
> http://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
> [cid:3362553080_116986]
>
> 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/> <http://www.mcevedy.eu/>  <
> http://www.mcevedy.eu<http://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: 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<
> http://victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>  <http://victoria
> @mcevedy.eu> > 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
> [cid:3362553080_101341]
>
> 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/> <http://www.mcevedy.eu/>  <
> http://www.mcevedy.eu<http://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: 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<
> http://victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>  <http://victoria
> @mcevedy.eu> > 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
> [cid:3362553080_144622]
>
> 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/> <http://www.mcevedy.eu/>  <
> http://www.mcevedy.eu<http://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://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> <
> http://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>  <http://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-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<http://cgomes@
> VERISIGN.COM> <http://cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  <http://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<http://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> <
> http://owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>  <http://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<
> http://olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> <http://olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>  <
> http://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<http://julie.hedlund@
> icann.org> <http://julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>  <http://julie.hedlund@
> icann.org> >
>
> 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<http://www.eset.com/> <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<http://www.eset.com/> <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<http://www.eset.com/> <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<http://www.eset.com/> <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<http://www.eset.com/> <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<http://www.eset.com/> <http://www.eset.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>