RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:36:25 -0400
I want to reiterate what I suggested earlier, possibly before this list
was initiated that I think it would be best to put specifics of
organizational structure (Council makeup, # of votes) aside until we
first identify specific needs of each constituency so that we can then
think out of box to explore ways of addressing all needs or at least a
reasonble amount of them in a way that most (if not all) can support.
It shouldn't take too long for us to do that and that will provide a
foundation for moving forward in what I hope will be a more efficient
process. I am leaving Paris today and will have more time to spend on
this starting tomorrow. I will try to communicate RyC needs and
principles as Philip suggested by tomorrow.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:07 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
> Perhaps I was using a different meaning of denigrate then is usual.
> It is a use I use a lot when speaking about pieces of a
> system or protocol which are no longer perceived of as
> useful. Since ICANN is a body with technical/policy role, I
> thought the usage would be clear.
> The nomcom fits a role within the system. You are looking to
> redesign the system and arguing that within this system the nomcom
> appointee no longer serves a purpose. That, to me, is a
> And that is what I think I was arguing against.
> I did not mean to say you were saying nasty things about us
> personally or blackening our names.
> On 2 Jul 2008, at 09:53, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > Avri,
> > I do not believe my discussion paper denigrated the nom com.
> > It stated an historic fact "Their number (3) is a function of the
> > present GNSO structure".
> > and an open issue "Their relevance in a reformed structure is
> > unclear". This last remark references the fact the formal nom com
> > review is incomplete and that we do not know the shape of the next
> > GNSO structure.
> > Philip