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

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

I am fine with the principles first as long as the principles are
consistent with the details and I think there is only one that is
questionable in that regard (does the Board or the House determine the #
of Council reps).

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:08 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group 
> Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
> 
> 
> It is fundamental that the principles are at the start not 
> the end. Think of the board reading all this for the fist time.
> 
> 
> > Robt:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Robert Hoggarth
> > Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 3:29 PM
> > To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - 
> > Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>