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

[MICHAEL YOUNG <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also support the below language.

Michael


On 10-07-22 12:53 PM, "Claudio Di Gangi" <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Chuck and Olga,
> 
> Here is the revised motion with the wording Chuck has suggested (below in red
> -- ³use² instead of ³evaluation²).  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-24
> may10-en.pdf>
> ·         Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies
> <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-absences-vacancies-11ju
> n10-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 ³inactive² 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@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 ³must²
> recommendations and the balance ?should¹ recommendations.
> 
> It¹s currently a motion for each group to carry on as these please and a
> recommendation for the status quo.  I don¹t think that¹s an acceptable outcome
> after our 18 months of work.
> 
> I would suggest that the recommendations should be accepted as the ?musts¹ or
> ?shoulds¹ 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@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> Dear WT,
> 
> Could someone explain what ³for evaluation in amending their charters, as
> appropriate² 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-24
> may10-en.pdf>
> ·         Section 3.8-Absences and Vacancies
> <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-op-procedures-absences-vacancies-11ju
> n10-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 ³inactive² 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
> team¹s dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/19/10 4:36 PM, "Chuck Gomes"
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<http://cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <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@xxxxxxxxx>
> <http://julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>  <http://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 Team¹s 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) __________
>