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

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

I support this.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
        Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:29 AM
        To: jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
        Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
        
        
        The last few emails have almost seen defeat snatched from the
jaws of victory for this group, which after all the effort is extremely
disappointing. I fully support the points Jon has made below, and don't
accept Avri's categorisation of the ISPs as supporting the same line as
the BC. The statements below I concur with, which is certainly not the
position Philip has adopted.
         
        Its true that we HAVE reached consensus on many issues, lets not
throw it all away. I suggest we still proceed as Jon proposes. Can
others support this?
         
         
        Tony

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: 26 July 2008 10:55
        To: Robert Hoggarth; Philip Sheppard
        Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
        Importance: High
        
        

        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