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

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

Please note my comments below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:33 PM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group
Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
        
        
        Rob and all,
        
        Following are a number of editorial comments on the document.
Substantive comments and the ALAC statement will follow.
        
        - At the moment, the snapshot says that the Board will decide on
the number of councillor per SG, and that this issue was not contentious
(ie not in red). If that is correct, the last paragraph of your summary
should note that we explicitly left certain issues to the Board to
decide.
        
        The rest of the comments refer to the Snapshot.
        
        - In 2.a.ii, I suggest the following wording to replace the red.
I am deliberately not mentioning the name of the house, as perhaps we
will come up with a more elegant one the USER/NCP, and the name is not
really the issue here. 

                "The composition of this house includes all interested
parties (subject to section 6) that use or provide services for the
Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties
referenced in 2.a.i. and should explicitly not be restricted to domain
registrants as recommended by the BGC. This is in line with the current
ICANN By-Laws."
                [Gomes, Chuck] Saying  "the composition of this house
includes all interested parties " seems to imply that individuals could
directly become members of the house.  It might be better to say
something like this: "This house would be made up of groups representing
all interested parties".
                
                

        - In 2.a.ii, it should really make clear that this person is
non-voting in any house-based vote (which currently is all of them). The
term non-voting can then be removed from 3.a since it is redundant.
        
        - There is no 2.b, so all items under it can be promoted up one
level.
        
        - In 3.a, it is unclear what pool the chair comes from. If it a
person to be elected from among sitting Council members, it should say
so.
        
        - In the various subsection of 4, the parenthetical giving
current status is sometimes after the title and before the proposal, and
sometimes at the end. The order should be consistent.
        
        - In section 5, there is no subsection b, so "a" can be deleted;
the title "Board Elections" in the large paragraph is redundant; the
left margin for the paragraph should be moved in; and at the end, "user"
should be replaced with "user/NCP".
        [Gomes, Chuck] I understood Tony to request that 'NCP' be used
instead of 'user'.  So there seem to be two views on this.  I can live
with either or both. 
        
        Alan