Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report

[Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>]

Philip and All.

Philip, I must confess that after reading your last transmission I stared at 
the wall for a full ten minutes trying to figure out an alternative to 
reporting that the group has not reached consensus.  We have two diametrically 
opposite positions on a fundamental issue.

If neither you nor Avri move from your positions regarding the third Nom Com 
appointee I see no other alternative but to report that the group has not 
reached consensus.

That being said, I still believe that I can share a revised package with the 
Board that summarizes the efforts, indicates the area of fundamental 
disagreement and note the areas where there has been considerable progress.

I've tried a number of mental gymnastics arguments with myself to figure out 
another way to handle this that is consistent with the groups' mandate and 
operating principles, but I confess I am at a loss. I welcome comments from 
anyone on this who may be waking up or just about to turn in.

I'm going to start working on an alternative document, but welcome any comments 
in the meantime.  Barring an changes in the next hour or so, I will have to 
send a note to the Board Secretary to report that the group does not have a 
consensus recommndation at this time, but that I will be working with the group 
to  provide a document outlining the group's progress and status as soon as 
possible.

I have already changed my air travel schedule twice today and I must be on a 
6am flight this morning which will put me out of touch for about five hours and 
away from my computer for about 8.  I should definitely be back on line about 
4pm EDT tomorrow, hopefully a little sooner than that but traveling east robs 
me of several hours.

As a result of those time challenges, my preliminary plan will be to get the 
status transmission out to the Board Secretary in the next hour or so (I think 
silence is NOT an option) and circulate the draft alternative document later 
tomorrow pm EDT.  In the meantime the group members can all work on revising 
their statements and we can target a final report early Sunday EDT.

Best,

RobH


On 7/25/08 11:21 PM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

Rob, everyone, thanks for the final time.

BC is fine with the fnal draft save the one issue i thought I had been
clear on - the third nom com which we do not support.
See attached.

Good effort all round.

Philip