[gnso-consensus-wg] Re: GNSO Consensus Group Strawman Agenda
And the applicable Board transcript portion attached ....... RobH On 7/3/08 10:33 AM, "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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. Attachment:
2008-06-26 Transcript of Board Discussion-Vote on GNSO Improvements.doc
|