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

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

The re phrasing is fine but the intent should be clearer.
My point is that if the contracted parties want a house of 50 that is fine
with me , if its fine with the board. As a users house i have no say in
your number of seats. And vice versa.
Philip

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>