RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Draft 14 July Meeting Report

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

Robert:
I think something important is missing from these notes. 
 
You will recall that I specifically inquired whether there was anyone who did 
_not_ support the principle of parity between the two user stakeholder groups. 
Initially Chuck spoke up about "issues" related to representativeness, but then 
assured the group that he did support voting parity for the user SGs. Thus, my 
understanding is that the group did agree on the principle of parity across the 
two user stakeholder groups. I think that needs to be noted. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 


 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
        Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:27 AM
        To: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Draft 14 July Meeting Report 
        
        
        
        

                        All:
                        
                        Attached please find my attempt to summarize your 
deliberations on Monday's call.  I regret that the summaries do not capture the 
full context of your discussions, but I hope they continue to offer a useful 
overview.  As usual, please let me know if there are any substantive points or 
decisions that I missed or should clarify.
                        
                        In reviewing my notes of the call I first considered 
that as moderator I should have driven for more specificity on the form and 
substance of your opening statements on the next call, but upon reflection I 
think some degree of latitude in the format and content follows the spirit of 
your discussions to date.
                        
                        As with the previous reports, please note that the 
document is intended to be an informal tool to help focus the effort and is not 
intended to be an official transcript. It commits you to nothing and failure to 
comment or correct this informal record does not indicate assent.  My 
interpretation continues to be that the final document - in whatever form it 
takes - will be the only binding document this group produces.
                        
                        Looking forward to the next discussion on Thursday.  
                        
                        Regards,
                        
                        RobH