RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
For the record, the statement I will be submitting comes from me and the small advisory group I have been working with. It is possible that the ALAC will issue a more formal statement at some later time. Alan At 25/07/2008 07:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: 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@xxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTCChuck: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.RobHOn 7/25/08 2:11 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>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 4SGs" 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.ChuckFrom: <owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert HoggarthSent: Friday, July 25, 2008 3:30 PM To: <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxxSubject: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTCImportance: 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
|