Re: [gnso-arr-dt] Revised Draft ARR Letter

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  
> One small edit: in the penultimative para, 1st sentence should read: "...it 
> is important..."

Thanks for the catch, good to have eagle eyed editors around..

On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Nice job Bill.  Two minor, nonmaterial edits:
> In the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, change "literatures" to 
> "literature".
But I'm referring to separate, distinctive literatures, not a single body of 
thought.  Which was the point, a broader scan beyond the one literature 
mentioned would have led to a different conclusion.
> The first sentence of the fifth paragraph says, "Fourth, selecting just one 
> member from each relevant of the AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, 
> Stability and Resiliency team) seems especially problematic."  I think it 
> should say, "Fourth, selecting just one member from each of the relevant 
> AC/SOs (or less, in the case of Security, Stability and Resiliency team) 
> seems especially problematic."
Ditto the above

> I approve this draft and suggest that Bill send to it to the Council list as 
> soon as possible with a request that all Councilors forward it to their 
> respective groups immediately for review and discussion, noting that the 
> Council will have to finalize the comments on 28 January.

Ok, but before doing so, I think we need to address Kristina's points:


On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:58 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> Apologies for belated comments.  This looks great.  Many thanks to you all 
> for drafting. 
>  
> I have two questions:  1) What is the point we are trying to make regarding 
> alternates?  Are we simply raising the possibility without taking a position? 
>    I was not entirely clear on that. 

Sorry, the idea of alternates was raised on the call but nobody really argued 
that we should definitely propose this, and one can readily imagine objections 
to/issues with the approach.  Moreover, if there were alternates, one could 
argue (not persuasively, but still...) that this makes the need for multiple 
GNSO participants less important.  So the wording was intended to put the idea 
on the table as something that might be considered without implying it might be 
a substitute for multiple slots.  If people think it doesn't work and it'd be 
better to make it a stand-alone recommendation, we can do that, let me know.

> 2)  Are we comfortable that the 90% number is correct?  I ask only b/c I 
> would have thought that persons encompassed by ALAC would have accounted for 
> more.

I have to defer to Chuck here, it's his number and suggestion.  Obviously, 
there are registrants (and non-registrants) in both GNSO and ALAC, some people 
(e.g. me) participate in both spaces, and some people are nominally represented 
by both even if they're not active participants, so putting people into 
mutually exclusive boxes doesn't work and such language can be viewed as murky 
from some perspectives...Thoughts?

Bill