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

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

Chuck, the objectives of the WG are to come to an agreement on a voting
distribution for the GNSO Council. Here is a direct quote from the Board
transcript that makes that very clear:

 

"[The Board] has endorsed everything else in the [BGC] report except the
issue of council voting, so there's 95% of the work is accepted and
approved and I hope we can see implementation steps on all the other
things which were in that very good report.  And just what's left is
this issue of the structure and the voting.

 Let me go on from that to say I hope there is absolutely no
misunderstanding about this in the community.  This, amongst other
things, is a real test of the self-regulatory model, and if the groups
involved cannot regulate themselves on this issue, then this is going to
be a significant failure of much more than just the GNSO voting
patterns." 

 

It can't get much clearer than that. That's our overall objective. So
our short term objective should be to get to section IV of Robert's
agenda as quickly as possible. 

In connection with that, my next message will be a specific proposal
which I expect to be discussed today. 

--MM

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 2:21 AM
To: Robert Hoggarth; Jonathon Nevett; Avri Doria;
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: GNSO Consensus Group Strawman
Agenda

 

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.