RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC

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

Robt:
One quick and probably non-controversial comment on presentation: 
The idea that noncontracting parties refers to "users" not just "registrants" 
is a _principle_ and I would propose that it be removed from the house 
description and made into Principle F.

A second, possibly more difficult suggestion: It makes sense to me to begin 
with the principles rather than have them at the end. I think they serve as a 
good guide to the meaning and objectives of the more detailed proposal.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 3:29 PM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses 
Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
 
All:

Attached please find the draft package for submission later today.  To try to 
anticipate some of the potential questions you may have .......

1.  The summary document is very brief.  Some would note the old adage that the 
shorter the document the more work went into it and that is true of this.  
Every time I attempted to offer a broader or deeper explanation I found 
language that was going to be problematic for at least one or two of you - 
believe me, by now I'm familiar with most of the land mines and/or 
sensitivities.  Please resist the temptation during your edits to add too much 
language.  For better or worse I hope this draft achieves the appropriate 
common denominator, but all comments and thoughts are expected and welcome.

2.  There are a number of areas you'll note I placed in red underline text:


 *   Because I wasn't sure where we ended up on the discussion of principles, I 
opted to include those that seemed remain relevant at the end of the snapshot 
(Attachment A). The location at the end of the draft was a practical decision 
because given the way they were originally drafted they seems awkward at the 
beginning of the document and, more importantly, because the final snapshot 
version Jon provided seemed to do a good job incorporating a lot of Philip's 
original text and thoughts  Nevertheless, as a compromise approach I chose to 
include them at the end to reinforce the themes set forth in the snapshot. so 
that Board members would get a good sense of your general approach to the 
effort.


 *   Toward the end of your email deliberations, Alan mentioned the 
USER-Registrant issue and Jon noted that he had missed it in the snapshot.  I 
added some language at the end of 2.a.ii. about that and need a show of hands 
whether it should remain and, if so, if that is the correct/appropriate 
language.


 *   There was some discussion toward the end of the email deliberations about 
dropping item 4 g. completely.  I've marked the section with red underlined 
text and need another show of hands about whether to keep the section in the 
document.


 *   Finally, in Attachment B, I just wanted to flag for you my thoughts about 
how to incorporate your separate statements, if any.

Sorry this is out a little later than originally planned.  The original 
timeline anticipated an extended seven hour review period.  So the new deadline 
will now be 1900PDT/300UTC. Please let me know asap if there is a problem with 
that.

If I can get all edits/comments in earlier than 1900 PD , we may have a chance 
for another editing round.

Thanks,

RobH