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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Rob.  With that understanding I will not plan on submitting a
statement to be included in this submission.  If at a later date it
seems useful to submit a statement I will do so via whatever means is
appropriate at that time.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Robert Hoggarth [mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 7:34 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group
Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
        
        
        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