[gnso-consensus-wg] Re: GNSO Consensus Group Strawman Agenda

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

In preparation for tomorrow's meeting/call, Glen and I have been putting 
together a "strawman" agenda (set forth below) that the group is welcome to 
expand, edit, modify or completely replace.

Because of our tight time schedule and because so many of you have been 
traveling or catching up on your professional lives over the last several days, 
we thought it would be important, in real-time, to first clarify and confirm 
agreement on the group's working process/ground rules and to let each 
representative clearly express his/her interests and goals entering into the 
process prior to starting a substantive conversation.

For convenient reference, I have also attached the portion of the transcript 
from the 26 June Board meeting during which the Board specifically discussed 
GNSO Improvements and the formation of this group.

Looking forward to the call tomorrow.

Best,

Rob Hoggarth


Proposed "Strawman" Agenda For First Meeting/Call of GNSO Consensus Working 
Group

I.     Roll Call of Constituency/AC representatives

II.   Confirm Meeting Agenda and expected length of meeting (initial call 
currently blocked for two hours)

III.   Process:

**    Record keeping - confirm call recording  and broader access (if any) to 
deliberations
**    Clarify availability expectations - 100% meeting attendance?
**    Clarify understanding of Board "consensus" expectation
**    Agree on "consensus" definition for purpose of this group
**    Agreement on internal group drafting process - including work tools 
(e.g., private or public wiki), drafting responsibilities and expectations for 
responsiveness to draft documents - internal deadlines and expected final result
**    Agreement on meeting schedule

IV.    Substance:

**   Opportunity for opening remarks/statement from each constituency/AC
**   Discussion of Philip's Options Paper and any other documents shared with 
the group

V.     Confirm Next meeting day/time and Adjourn

# # #



On 7/3/08 9:26 AM, "Jonathon Nevett" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Who is chairing the meeting tomorrow and what is the agenda?

Also, based on the back and forth that I've seen so far, we may want to
discuss whether it makes sense to employ the use of a professional
mediator to help facilitate the discussions if we ever do have a
face-to-face meeting.

Thanks.

Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:36 AM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: ALL not "Most"



On 3 Jul 2008, at 12:09, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> We can make it as political as we want, or not.

I tend to think we cannot avoid this discussion being political - we
are dealing with the balance between competing political interests.
That seems to me to be essentially a political debate.

I also think the process of building consensus for political
compromise perforce requires a great deal creativity.

So while I don't think we can pretend that this is not a political
process, i also think that trying to be creative in our solution
exploration might be necessary.

Though i am at a loss at the moment to understand what bit of
creativity is going to get us beyond the dichotomies and competing
imperatives we face.

a.





a.