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

[<tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx>]

I'd like to echo Jon's words, particularly as the midnight hour is far
approaching for me (and already has for Philip!)
 
Can we settle on the report?
 
Tony

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: 25 July 2008 22:56
To: Alan Greenberg; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC



Rob:

 

When do you think that we will have a final draft for which we should
comment on (if we choose to file comments)?  It's a bit of a moving
target, so I suggest that you circulate a final draft shortly, so we can
decide whether to file comments and if so, on what issues.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:33 PM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC

 

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