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

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

Thanks very much Rob.  You did a great job.  Your work is even more
impressive considering the huge challenges presented by the the very
extensive group exchanges the last 24-48 hours and the late hours during
which you did it.
 
Because the narative for 2.c in Attachment A only lists the BC and NCA
has having competing views, I concluded that only the BC opposed the
inclusion of a 'Council-level Non-Voting Nominating Committee
Appointee'.  In particular I concluded that the ISCPC supports the
inclusion of such a nomcom seat even though it is later pointed out that
they joined the BC in opposing the possibility of that appointee being
chair.  If I am correct on this, in the spirit of compromise, everyone
was willing to accept 2.c except the BC.  I bring this up not to suggest
any change in the document but rather to make sure I accurately
reference the final position of all group members in comments that I
will prepare in the next few days.
 
Considering the fact that there was not 100% agreement regarding the
inclusion of a 'Council-level Non-Voting Nominating Committee
Appointee', I believe that the following sentence in 3.b should be in
bold font: "If the Council Chair is elected from one of the houses,
however, then the Council-level Nominating Committee Appointee shall
serve as one of the Vice Chairs in lieu of the Vice Chair from the house
of the elected Chair." 
 
It just now dawns on me that the language of 5 (Board Elections) may
preclude the Contracted Parties House from selecting anyone who is
associated with a registry or registar for seat 13 when it next becomes
vacant because Rita will still be on the Board at that time.  That
certainly was not the intent of the RyC but I unfortunately did not
observe that nuance in time.  I would like to think that others didn't
intentionally intend that consequence either.  If so, I would hope that
we could propose a slight change after the fact that would qualify the
text after the semi-colon to something like the following: "BUT, after
the end of the current term for seat 14, both seats may not be held by
individuals who are employed by, an agent of, or receive any
compensation from an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor may
they both be held by individuals who are the appointed representatives
to one of the GNSO user stakeholder groups." Without such a change, the
options open to the Contracted Party House would be overly restricted in
filling seat 13 the next time around.  My apologies to the group for not
catching this sooner.  It probably is too late to make such a change
now, but I would appreciate it if we would consider it after the fact
and would be curious if there is any opposition to that.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
        Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:45 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
        Importance: High
        
        
        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