RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:16:32 -0400
The only thing I would be willing to declare is that we did not reach
100% consensus on every point. But I would qualify that with clearly
communicating how very close we came to 100% consensus. And I think Rob
accomplished that in the final report.
In the beginning we set the lofty goal of trying to reach 100% agreement
but we also recognized that is was lofty and several of us throughout
the process noted that in cases of disagreement by a few, we should not
throw out what we accomplished. The fact that we did not achieve a
perfect 100% should not be deemed a failure; in fact, we had what I view
as tremendous success and that success should be clearly detailed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:00 AM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
> Importance: High
> 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
> 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 compromises made by the group which have now been rescinded,
> - loss of one vote by turning one of the NCAs into a non
> voting but default (acting might be another term) Council
> - loss of voting ratio in each of the houses.
> 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
> > 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>