RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Draft #2 of Board Report

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 h
>
>
> I 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