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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with Jon and Chuck here. We have given the Board important 
parameters that are acceptable to the two houses, and told them to make the 
final determination. I don't see this as an important issue, not worth fussing 
over. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 7:48 PM
To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report -      
Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
 

The point I believe Jon argued is that it does not make sense in the
same document to say that the Board will determine the number of reps
for each house and that the house will determine the number of reps is
problematic.  The fact that the Board will ultimately approve the number
in its act of approving the structure is different than the Board
actually determining the #'s.

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 6:11 PM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group 
> Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> > [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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>