Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
All; I came to a resolution in the wee hours this morning to proceed with completing and submitting a report of your work efforts. In view of the fundamental disagreement on the issue of the NCA, I edited the document to reflect that disagreement but also advised the Board of the significant progress to date. You all have equal opportunity to give me a hard time about this decision, but I hope that you will view the document with an open mind. When I am in better shape tomorrow I will summarize all the changes and the reasoning behind them. In the meantime, please review the document with an eye toward revising your supplemental statements. Avri apparently was the only one awake to do so. In submitting the report shortly I am asking that the Board to accept amended supplemental statements in light of the frenetic email dialogue and the significant disparities in time zones that accompanied these deliberations.. Thank you all again for your patience and hard work. I believe the final package is still a testament to your tireless efforts on this matter. I hope you feel the same. Regards, RobH On 7/26/08 1:07 AM, "Robert Hoggarth" <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 Attachment:
Report To ICANN Board Of The Working Group On GNSO Restructuring 25 July 2008.doc
|