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

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

Milton,
 
If we can achieve that today, great.  If we can, I would hope that we
can at least achieve the objectives I stated.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 3:44 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: GNSO Consensus Group
Strawman Agenda
        
        

        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.