Thanks for this Rob.
As you may know, the call was scheduled at virtually the only time
during the entire first week of July (including other times on July
4) for which I have an irreconcilable conflict. I will try to join
for part of the meeting but apologize in advance that I may have to
be on a mobile phone, which I know is poor teleconference etiquette.
Steve Metalitz
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:37 AM
To: Jonathon Nevett; Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [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.