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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I said, I only thought a wiki was worth having if it would prove  
useful.  I have no intention of digging trenches.
I do not think the problem is as constrained as you argue.  I think it  
is possible to come up with any number of possible solutions.  And if  
eliminating nomcom reps is a possibility, i suppose it is also a  
possibility that constituency representation be removed and that all  
council members could be appointed by nomcom.  After all if it is to  
be just a management council as some people argue, perhaps picking a  
council of specialists to manage as opposed to having it full of  
competing constituencies will remove the problem of voting balance -  
the ultimate in moving away from a legislative model.  This might  
become an especially appealing possibility if we cannot find a balance  
point that all of the constituencies are comfortable with.
Not suggesting it at this point, but arguing that the range of  
possible solutions is not as constrained as was stated in your message.
a.



On 1 Jul 2008, at 20:45, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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