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

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:

The concept of additional statements began with the idea that some group 
members would have objections to certain provisions., and that is the spirit in 
which I included that language.  But individual statements will not be subject 
to editing and several members have already indicated that they will be 
submitting statements.. Don't know if that answers your query.

RobH




On 7/25/08 2:11 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Very well written Rob.  I support the complete package with the comments below 
that will hopefully help in the finalization of the report.

I need clarity on the following:  The last paragraph of the main document says, 
"The group agreed that in providing this report that individual members would 
have the opportunity to provide separate statements to share those concerns 
with the Board."  I conclude then that only those who do not support a 
particular element(s) of the proposal should submit separate statements.  Is 
that correct?  I personally don't see a need to submit one if we are willing to 
support the entire proposal.

On 2.a.ii, I thought Tony had suggested we use the name 'Noncontracted Party 
House' and avoid the name 'User'.  I am okay either way.  I definitely support 
the use of the term 'user' instead of 'registrant' wherever applicable.

For 2.a.iii, shouldn't' this say, "1 Council-level Nonvoting Nominating 
Committee Appointee"

Regarding 3.a, I would hate to see the total support for the full package be 
reduced because of this one.  I would rather defer it 30 days.  But I will go 
with the majority.

I think it would be good to change principle B as follows: "Policy binding on 
the Board (i.e., requiring 2/3 Board vote to reject) should have at least one 
vote of support from 3 of the 4
SGs"

I support the comments already submitted by others as follows:


 *
 *   Milton - "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."
 *
 *
 *   Jon - "Just three initial  points:
 *
 *
 *
 *
    *   I don't think  that anyone suggested deleting as moot 4.g (Removal of 
NomCom Appointees),  but rather 4.d (Appointing a Task Force).
    *   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.
 *   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."
 *   Steve - "I am fine with  what you have provided re the user-registrant 
label and think it fits well  where you have placed it.  If others feel 
strongly it should be a  principle, I don't object.
 *
 *
 *   I vote to keep 4g in the  document.
 *
 *
 *
 *   I vote to include the principles and support the proposal  to move them to 
the beginning of the  attachment.
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *   In section 4 of the snapshot, we are confusingly  inconsistent about the 
placement of the parenthetical regarding current  practice; I suggest it be 
moved in 4a and 4c before the dash (as it is now in  the others).  Also, in 4h, 
insert before the dash, "(other than  Board  elections)"."

Great job on everyone's part.
Chuck


________________________________


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