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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jon.  Like I said before, if there are no more than two 
objections, they should be treated as minority positions.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:34 PM
        To: Robert Hoggarth; Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Draft #2 of Board Report
        
        

        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