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

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

It is fundamental that the principles are at the start not the end. Think
of the board reading all this for the fist time.


> Robt:
> 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.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Robert Hoggarth
> Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 3:29 PM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
> Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>