Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
- To: <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
- From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:20:46 -0700
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
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
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.
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.
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
clear on - the third nom com which we do not support.
Good effort all round.