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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Editorial stuff...

- My previous comment to add "non-voting" had a 
typo in it. I meant adding it to the council 
level appointee description - but it was done at 
someone else's request anyway. I did suggest 
taking the same phrase out of what is now 3a 
because it is redundant (the person is already 
non-voting). Doesn't really matter.
- If you plan to keep the red stuff as an 
indication that there was no unanimity, you need to define it somewhere.
- the red part of 2b makes reference to 2.a.i which is now simply 2a.

- 4g is no longer red but is underlined. Don't 
know what that means (I think it was red because 
of me, and I withdrew the objection when "for cause" was added.
- The second paragraph of 5 still has the redundant "Board Elections" title.

Do I get the prize for finding the deliberate error for one of the above three?


Substantive...

- I am not asking for anything here, but I just 
noticed that all of our talk about thresholds 
does not specify if it a percentage of members 
present, or the entire house and does not specify 
if abstentions are allowed (all of which vary in 
the current rules). I presume in the absence of 
us specifying, whoever writes the new By-Laws 
will either carry forward the distinctions, or 
ignore them and make them all % of members present.
- I am very uncomfortable with Principle C. As 
worded, it is now even more encompassing than 
before, and is still at odds with section 2. 
Confusion and varying interpretations in 
implementing this new structure is a given, by 
why demand them from the start? Your introduction 
states that the Principles were agreed to based 
on 100% consensus, and this one does not seem to 
qualify with at least three people objecting.
- I can easily live with Milton's principle F. 
However, all of the other principles are then 
echoed in more specificity in the Snapshot, and I 
don't see why this is different, so the 
description in 2b is still fitting. Regardless of 
whether it is in one place or the other or both, 
I feel very strongly that somewhere we need to 
point out that we are asking that the CURRENT By-Law simply be maintained.
- Regarding the actual wording in 2b regarding SG 
membership, I don't think that your new wording 
really captures what Chuck said (and Milton 
disagreed with). I tend to agree with Chuck's 
position, but I can live with either.
Alan



At 25/07/2008 10:42 PM, you wrote:
> 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>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)
> Principles moved to top of snapshot document (Attachment A).
> 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.
> 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.
> I cleaned up section 2 and 5 per Alan?s suggestions.
> 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.
> 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.
> Based on your email dialogue, item 3.a. 
> Regarding Council leadership is still there.
> Cleaned up ?consistently inconsistent? parentheses in Item 4.
> Kept item 4.g. - no longer red and converted 
> item 4.d (Task Force) to red.  If anyone challenges 4.d. its out .
> 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