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

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

Sounds like a good thing to do Milton but I don't think I have time to
do it.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:05 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group
Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
        
        

        Just FYI, Chuck, I will be submitting an NCUC statement that
states why we AGREE with key aspects of the plan and why we think it is
a good plan, and informing the Board of a few areas where we, despite
agreement, preferred slight changes (e.g., Nomcom choice of GNSO Chair).
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gomes,
Chuck
        Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 7:38 PM
        To: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group
Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
        
        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