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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Rob.  The agenda looks like a good start.  It seems to me though
that we need some clear objectives for the meeting.  I think we should
try to come to agreement on what we want to achieve in the meeting
before proceeding too far.  As a starter,  I think it would be good if
we could at least achieve the following by the end of the call:
 
1. Agree on methodology & schedule.  This should probably include
logistical information ((teleconferences, in-person meeting, email,
etc.) and at least a rough idea about what working methods we plan to
use to reach consensus on GNSO structure (e.g., exchanging & debating
proposals, using a mediator if needed, negotiations, collaborative
development of a solution, etc.). 
 
2. Agree on what feedback each of us need to obtain from our
constituencies or groups before the next meeting so that we can maximize
our efforts in that meeting.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
        Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:33 AM
        To: Jonathon Nevett; Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: GNSO Consensus Group Strawman
Agenda
        
        
        
        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.