Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
- To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <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 06:26:01 -0700
For those of us who have not committed this to memory could someone please
advise who holds seat 13 and 14 now and when those terms expire?
We might also consider that since both seats are now held by people associated
with contracted parties, the UNCP house be allowed to fill the next seat that
becomes vacant after the new structure takes effect.
Sorry not to have raised this till now but I had not thought through the
difficulties of giving the CP house the first slot to fill. Clearly that will
Sent via blackberry mobile. Please excuse tone and typoes.
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat Jul 26 06:08:05 2008
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
Thanks very much Rob. You did a great job. Your work is even more impressive
considering the huge challenges presented by the the very extensive group
exchanges the last 24-48 hours and the late hours during which you did it.
Because the narative for 2.c in Attachment A only lists the BC and NCA has
having competing views, I concluded that only the BC opposed the inclusion of a
'Council-level Non-Voting Nominating Committee Appointee'. In particular I
concluded that the ISCPC supports the inclusion of such a nomcom seat even
though it is later pointed out that they joined the BC in opposing the
possibility of that appointee being chair. If I am correct on this, in the
spirit of compromise, everyone was willing to accept 2.c except the BC. I
bring this up not to suggest any change in the document but rather to make sure
I accurately reference the final position of all group members in comments that
I will prepare in the next few days.
Considering the fact that there was not 100% agreement regarding the inclusion
of a 'Council-level Non-Voting Nominating Committee Appointee', I believe that
the following sentence in 3.b should be in bold font: "If the Council Chair is
elected from one of the houses, however, then the Council-level Nominating
Committee Appointee shall serve as one of the Vice Chairs in lieu of the Vice
Chair from the house of the elected Chair."
It just now dawns on me that the language of 5 (Board Elections) may preclude
the Contracted Parties House from selecting anyone who is associated with a
registry or registar for seat 13 when it next becomes vacant because Rita will
still be on the Board at that time. That certainly was not the intent of the
RyC but I unfortunately did not observe that nuance in time. I would like to
think that others didn't intentionally intend that consequence either. If so,
I would hope that we could propose a slight change after the fact that would
qualify the text after the semi-colon to something like the following: "BUT,
after the end of the current term for seat 14, both seats may not be held by
individuals who are employed by, an agent of, or receive any compensation from
an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor may they both be held by
individuals who are the appointed representatives to one of the GNSO user
stakeholder groups." Without such a change, the options open to the Contracted
Party House would be overly restricted in filling seat 13 the next time around.
My apologies to the group for not catching this sooner. It probably is too
late to make such a change now, but I would appreciate it if we would consider
it after the fact and would be curious if there is any opposition to that.
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:45 AM
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
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>
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.
Good effort all round.