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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Robert:

This is a very good framework for the initial meeting. I would propose
one change. Move "agreement on internal drafting process" more to the
end. I would not want to spend a lot of time talking about drafting
processes and tools before we have had any substantive discussion.
Consistent with my earlier comments, our problem is not primarily one of
drafting text, it is reaching a political bargain regarding voting
distributions. 

I have modified the agenda as proposed below. 

 

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 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.   Discussion of 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



VI.     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.