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

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob:

 

I don't think that we should delete a section/provision based on one comment 
that may come in.  We have come too far to see it unravel if one person decides 
in a moment of weakness in the middle of the night to see a section removed.  I 
think that you should have two or three similar comments before you delete any 
section/provision.

 

I look forward to seeing Draft 2 and finding the typo!

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:49 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