RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report Pls reply by Midnight PDT

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

I didn't think Milton recommended a change to Principle B but rather just 
suggested like I had before that 'binding policy' be defined.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 12:20 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report Pls 
reply by Midnight PDT
        
        

        I don't agree with Milton's change to Principle B - the principle is 
true for majority approved consensus policy not just supermajority policy.

         

        I thought that the changes in 2.b were in lieu of Principle F.  We 
should one or the other - both seem to be overkill.

         

        I agree with the rest of Milton's comments, including the deletion of C 
as amended.

         

        Thanks.

         

        Jon

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:54 PM
        To: Milton L Mueller; Robert Hoggarth; Glen de Saint Géry; 
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report Pls 
reply by Midnight PDT

         

        Not having been able to see the document, Milton's comments seem fine 
to me.

         

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
                Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:43 PM
                To: Robert Hoggarth; Glen de Saint Géry; 
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board 
Report Pls reply by Midnight PDT

                Robert:

                 

                Thanks for the all-nighter! Here are my comments. I don't think 
I am introducing anything new, but merely asking for things I thought had been 
agreed:

                 

                No need to redline the word "principles"

                 

                Principle B should be clarified as Chuck Gomes suggested: 
"Council recommendation of policy requiring 2/3 Board vote to reject should 
have at least one vote of support from at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups." 

                 

                Principle C should be redlined, I thought Jon and Chuck thought 
it should be deleted and I did too, but Philip wanted it.

                 

                Principle F should be added: "The noncontracting party House 
should be composed of users and not restricted to domain registrants as 
recommended by the BGC."

                 

                Have a good weekend all, and I commend you on the result.

                --M

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
                Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:43 PM
                To: Robert Hoggarth; Glen de Saint Géry; 
gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Retry -- Draft #2 of Board Report 
Pls reply by Midnight PDT

                 

                My sincere apologies. Let me try this again ........
                
                All previous comments apply.
                
                RobH
                
                
                On 7/25/08 6:48 PM, "Robert Hoggarth" 
<robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

                
                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