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

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

Philip:

It's only sound if you think that a contradiction within a document
makes logical sense.

"Each house will NOT determine its number of seats" is actually a more
accurate principle than "Each house will determine its number of seats"
when we know that the Board will make that determination and not each
house.

If your principle is that: 

Each house in bicameral structure should be independent.  

I am fine with that.

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:11 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC



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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>