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

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

Bc: sorry the principle that each house determne its own composiion is
sound. That determnation must be approved by the board is of course a
given. The point is the independence of the houses in a bi cameral
strucure.

philip
> Rob:
>
>
>
> Nice job
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>