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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 25/07/2008 07:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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".
I am fine with that. It was not my intent to include individuals at that level.


> - 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.
I like the idea of using user/NCP for the moment, and find a more 
elegant (and meaningful to all name) when we have more time.
Alan


> Alan