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

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

I agree with Steve, but would suggest adding the words "at least" as
shown in brackets below.  Thanks.  Jon

 

"Council recommendation of binding policy should have at least one vote
of support from [at least] 3 of 4 SGs."  

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC

 

Re Chuck's last comment --

 

I think it would be good to change principle B as follows: "Policy
binding on the Board (i.e., requiring 2/3 Board vote to reject) should
have at least one vote of support from 3 of the 4
SGs"

 

I don't think that's correct.  The provision on one vote from 3 of the 4
groups is 4(e) which applies to approval of PDP without supermajority
(not requiring 2/3 Board vote to reject).  Under 4(f), you need 3/4 of
one House and majority of the other to "bind" the Board (more precisely,
require a 2/3 majority to reject), and you can't achieve that with only
1 vote from the 3rd stakeholder group. 

 

I believe B is correct as stated. Though perhaps we should say "Council
recommendation of binding policy should have at least one vote of
support from 3 of 4 SGs."  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:12 PM
To: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC

Very well written Rob.  I support the complete package with the comments
below that will hopefully help in the finalization of the report.

 

I need clarity on the following:  The last paragraph of the main
document says, "The group agreed that in providing this report that
individual members would have the opportunity to provide separate
statements to share those concerns with the Board."  I conclude then
that only those who do not support a particular element(s) of the
proposal should submit separate statements.  Is that correct?  I
personally don't see a need to submit one if we are willing to support
the entire proposal.

 

On 2.a.ii, I thought Tony had suggested we use the name 'Noncontracted
Party House' and avoid the name 'User'.  I am okay either way.  I
definitely support the use of the term 'user' instead of 'registrant'
wherever applicable.

 

For 2.a.iii, shouldn't' this say, "1 Council-level Nonvoting Nominating
Committee Appointee"

 

Regarding 3.a, I would hate to see the total support for the full
package be reduced because of this one.  I would rather defer it 30
days.  But I will go with the majority.

 

I think it would be good to change principle B as follows: "Policy
binding on the Board (i.e., requiring 2/3 Board vote to reject) should
have at least one vote of support from 3 of the 4
SGs"

 

I support the comments already submitted by others as follows:

 

*       Milton - "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." 
*       Jon - "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."

*       Steve - "I am fine with what you have provided re the
user-registrant label and think it fits well where you have placed it.
If others feel strongly it should be a principle, I don't object.   

 

I vote to keep 4g in the document.  

 

I vote to include the principles and support the proposal to move them
to the beginning of the attachment.  

 

In section 4 of the snapshot, we are confusingly inconsistent about the
placement of the parenthetical regarding current practice; I suggest it
be moved in 4a and 4c before the dash (as it is now in the others).
Also, in 4h, insert before the dash, "(other than Board elections)"."

Great job on everyone's part.

Chuck

        
________________________________


        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