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

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob:

 

Nice job

 

Just three initial points:

 

1.      I don't think that anyone suggested deleting as moot 4.g
(Removal of NomCom Appointees), but rather 4.d (Appointing a Task
Force).
2.      I don't want to speak for others, but I don't think that
everyone signed off on the process/threshold/default on the election of
GNSO Chair.  I think that enough of us agreed to it that it should be in
the draft (and it sounds like that it is a condition for Avri to approve
the package), but it should be noted that there was a minority viewpoint
that had concerns, but that it wasn't a deal killer issue for them.
3.      I would suggest deleting Principle C (Each House will determine
its own total number of seats) as it is no longer relevant.  In the
draft, we suggest that the ICANN Board determine the number of seats for
each house based on the parameters recommended by the group.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:30 PM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
Importance: High

 

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