RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Private WIKI for Consensus group

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I'm getting a bit worried about the level of trench-digging and long-term 
preparation that seems to be going on. My understanding is that we have a 
pretty simple problem: come to an agreement on the voting distribution on the 
new GNSO Council. It basically involves attaching acceptable numbers to the 4 
constituencies (or three constituencies, if that idea survives) and (if it 
still is part of the agreement) to Nomcom appointees. 

We're not drafting constitutions, we're not rewriting the GNSO PDP process or 
bylaws. We're supposed to go back to the Board with numbers attached to 
constituencies, right? And say to them, "we agree on this, you work out the 
details." Perhaps those numbers will be decorated with some curlicues like an 
agreement that users and suppliers get one GNSO Board seat, but I hope we're 
not getting more complicated than that. 

We have now 24 days.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 1:03 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Private WIKI for Consensus group
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> i think i wiki might be useful if people are comfortable using it.
> 
> and i agree this is not part of the GNSO process, but part of an
> extraordinary board process.  i am, however, comfortable going either
> way with it.
> 
> one way to go might be to make it public after all is said and done so
> people can see how the sausage was made.  this would go for the
> mailing list too.
> 
> but again i am comfortable either way.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 1 Jul 2008, at 18:36, <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>
> <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > I'm not sure that'll be helpful in this case. Whilst we all need to
> > take soundings from our constituent's this could result in full mail
> > boxes as well as enabling people outside of the discussion to adopt
> > strong lobbying opinions without understanding the full background.
> >
> > I see no reason why this exercise should be constrained by GNSO
> > practices at this stage. It reports to the Board, not the GNSO.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: 01 July 2008 16:37
> > To: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Private WIKI for Consensus group
> >
> >
> > To be consentent with recent GNSO practices it probably would be a
> > good idea to give public read-only access and group members read/
> > write access.  But maybe we should let the group decide on that.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint
> >> Géry
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:15 AM
> >> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Private WIKI for Consensus group
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> Would you like a private WIKI, that is one that can only be read and
> >> edited by members of the group, set up for the group's work?
> >>
> >> Let me know.
> >> Thank you very much.
> >>
> >> Glen
> >>
> >> Glen de Saint Géry
> >> GNSO Secretariat
> >> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://gnso.icann.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>