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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@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>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>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>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