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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think we need to declare that we did not reach consensus.  I think  
this is the case because neither I, nor I would believe, BC/ISPC  
believe that the issue on the number of NCA is just an incidental  
matter.  It seems to be fundamental to 3 parties to these discussions.
I think that once we have declared lack of consensus, i think it is  
reasonable for Rob to proceed as the majority wished (with me alone in  
dissent) and to report the items on which there was rough consensus.   
The Board can then take it or leave it.
BTW: I had to look up "condition precedent" knowing it had to have a  
precise definition, and yes I agree that it is the correct term. In  
consultation with the other NCAs we have determined that not only do  
we think eliminating one of the NCAs is not within scope for this  
group, we would not be ready to agree to this condition even if it  
were ruled to be in scope.
We have confirmed as well, that we do stick by the previous  
compromises made by the group which have now been rescinded, including:
- loss of one vote by turning one of the NCAs into a non voting but  
default (acting might be another term) Council chair/v-chair
- loss of voting ratio in each of the houses.

a.


On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:54, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> Rob:
>
> I don’t agree with your proposed approach at all.  We shouldn’t  
> throw it all out based on this issue.   Moreover, I literally will  
> be unreachable later today and for two days following.
> Attached is a mark-up of the report that should be sent to the Board  
> in my opinion.
> Tony said that he does not support the default Chair in 3.a and 3.b  
> and thinks that issue should be worked out in the near term.  He has  
> made this point all along.
> It appears to me that the only change in position is that Philip now  
> seems to be concerned with keeping a third NomCom seat that is non- 
> voting.  We all gave in on things important to us – why he can’t  
> agree to a non voting seat is beyond me.
> I also understand that working this issue out in a satisfactory  
> manner is a condition precedent to Avri’s support and that should be  
> mentioned in the report.
> We need to end this now.  Attached is a way to do it.  We still  
> reached consensus on most issues.  There is one issue that needs to  
> be worked out and we ran out of time.  I added the issue and Avri’s  
> statement that without it, she does not support the entire package.
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> ] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 4:08 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
> Importance: High
>
> 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
> <Second Draft Consens#23B6CEjn.doc>