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

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

Correction: If we can achieve that today, great.  If we can't, would
hope that we can at least achieve the objectives I stated.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 9:46 AM
        To: Milton L Mueller; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Re: GNSO Consensus Group
Strawman Agenda
        
        
        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.