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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I can accept the plan as written though will be sending a note  
outlining a set of concerns to be attached to the report thus  
completing the consensus as we defined it.
It should not be hard to guess that i will address 3 issues in that  
note:
- the ratio of constituency members to nomcom appointees
- the election of council reps by houses only
- the complexity of the solution.

Despite my concerns, i do think it is remarkable how far this group  
came.
a.

On 25 Jul 2008, at 22:26, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> Rob:
>
> Nice job
>
> Just three initial points:
>
> 	• I don’t think that anyone suggested deleting as moot 4.g (Removal  
> of NomCom Appointees), but rather 4.d (Appointing a Task Force).
> 	• 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.
> 	• 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