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

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

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.

Chuck 

> -----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
> 
> 
> 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 compromises made by the group which have now been rescinded, 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>
> 
> 
>