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

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

Thanks Tony for your comments.  You confirmed for me what I had already
concluded as you will see in my comments on the final report.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 9:06 AM
> To: avri@xxxxxxx
> Cc: robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
> 
> 
> Avri
> 
> I do have an issue with the default chair but that can go on 
> the 'still to resolve'list, but the third non voting NCA I 
> can live with if it's a deal breaker. After all compromise 
> always means nobody is totally happy, but you live with it. 
> After we took that step I did think we were almost there. 
> 
> If we let this fall way now, none of us leave with any credit at all.
> That's bad for us and bad for ICANN.
> 
> Tony
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 26 July 2008 13:52
> To: Holmes,AR,Tony,DMF R
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am sorry if i misinterpreted your remarks.  I though you 
> also agreed that the homeless NCA should be eliminated from 
> the mix and that you also dispute the notion of a default or 
> acting Wg chair.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 26 Jul 2008, at 14:28, <tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
>