RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Draft #2 of Board Report
Yup, did a compare and they are identical. Sort of makes it hard to try to make the 0300 UTC deadline. At 25/07/2008 10:14 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Robert:Did you attach the wrong document? The second version I downloaded seems no different from the first. The principles are not at the beginning-----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Fri 7/25/2008 9:48 PM To: Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Draft #2 of Board Report All:Draft # 2 attached with notable points set forth below in general order as they appear (or don't appear) in the document. One of my challenges this afternoon was my inability to get track changes operational so I have itemized a number of the changes to the document below with explanations for making (or not making a change). All changes refer to the snapshot document (Attachment A)1. Principles moved to top of snapshot document (Attachment A).2. Three edits to Principle B - To address part of Chuck's concern I added the words "Council recommendation of" to the front of the principle. Steve suggested that language and since a current supermajority vote of the Council has the effect of converting the action to a Council "recommendation" (see ICANN By laws Annex A, number 12) it seemed a reasonable approach. Second, I inserted Jon's "at least" language suggestion just before "3 of 4" because it clarified the principle without changing its meaning. Third, I spelled out SGs. If those are not acceptable changes we'll have to delete the principle for lack of consensus. 3. For Principle C the answer to the extensive dialogue would seem to be to substitute the word "composition" for "total number of seats." I hope that wording significantly reduces the potential contradiction with Item 2. If that is not an appropriate compromise I think we'll just have to delete the principle for lack of consensus.4. I cleaned up section 2 and 5 per Alan's suggestions.5. To address concerns w/respect to the naming of the houses in Section 2, I changed the characterization of the name of each house to a descriptive term, and even flipped the words in the descriptive term for the second house. I substituted out the red text that I had drafted for the text that Alan drafted and made a slight modification of the language to partly address Chuck's concerns. Alan and Chuck particularly should examine that change. 6. Item 2.c. I added the term "Nonvoting" to that section. I did not make the change with respect to non-voting that Alan suggested in Section 2.b. because I understood that the Nomcom appointees in each house were voting members. I think it would be problematic at this stage to do any additional wordsmithing on that specific topic, but clarification is welcome. 7. Based on your email dialogue, item 3.a. Regarding Council leadership is still there.8. Cleaned up "consistently inconsistent" parentheses in Item 4.9. Kept item 4.g. - no longer red and converted item 4.d (Task Force) to red. If anyone challenges 4.d. its out . 10. I added Steve's suggested parenthetical text "(other than Board elections)" to Item 4 hI also welcome any additional typo catches. I did leave one just to make sure everyone reads the whole document.Given the late hour, I think if anyone proposes a substantive challenge to any of the principles as drafted they will need to be deleted for lack of consensus. If anyone offers any more substantive challenges they will also have to be deleted from the document. Its just not possible to keep everyone on-line and awake at the same time.You have all made some tremendous progress on this effort in a very short period of time, but we have to cut this off around Midnight PDT tonight. That will give me time to append statements and still beat the "international date line" deadline. :-) Thank you all for continued patience and generally good humor at this 11th hour.RobH
|