RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
- To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] First Draft Consensus Group Report - Responses Please By 1900PDT-300UTC
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:22:21 -0400
At 25/07/2008 07:59 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Please note my comments below.
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 5:33 PM
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
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.