ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-consensus-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:33:13 -0400

Rob and all,

Following are a number of editorial comments on the document. Substantive comments and the ALAC statement will follow.

- At the moment, the snapshot says that the Board will decide on the number of councillor per SG, and that this issue was not contentious (ie not in red). If that is correct, the last paragraph of your summary should note that we explicitly left certain issues to the Board to decide.

The rest of the comments refer to the Snapshot.

- In 2.a.ii, I suggest the following wording to replace the red. I am deliberately not mentioning the name of the house, as perhaps we will come up with a more elegant one the USER/NCP, and the name is not really the issue here. "The composition of this house includes all interested parties (subject to section 6) that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties referenced in 2.a.i. and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC. This is in line with the current ICANN By-Laws."

- In 2.a.ii, it should really make clear that this person is non-voting in any house-based vote (which currently is all of them). The term non-voting can then be removed from 3.a since it is redundant.

- There is no 2.b, so all items under it can be promoted up one level.

- In 3.a, it is unclear what pool the chair comes from. If it a person to be elected from among sitting Council members, it should say so.

- In the various subsection of 4, the parenthetical giving current status is sometimes after the title and before the proposal, and sometimes at the end. The order should be consistent.

- In section 5, there is no subsection b, so "a" can be deleted; the title "Board Elections" in the large paragraph is redundant; the left margin for the paragraph should be moved in; and at the end, "user" should be replaced with "user/NCP".

Alan


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy