Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
If things like the determination of house size change, this will require re-working of statements. That couples with the existing time-slippage will be untenable (some of us have other commitments in our lives). Alan At 25/07/2008 06:19 PM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: Thanks to you all for the prompt responses. Having now heard at least once from everyone, I'll work on edits right now. and shoot for a second draft shortly.RobHOn 7/25/08 3:10 PM, "Philip Sheppard" <<philip.sheppard@xxxxxxx>philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote: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>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>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 > > > > > > > >
|