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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Since the most recent word from Rob was that the deadline for amending our 
supplemental statements would be Sunday am EDT,  I am treating that as 1159 
unless Rob advises me otherwise. I am sure someone will let me know if this has 
been superseded. 
Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes. 

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat Jul 26 04:44:57 2008
Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report

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