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

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

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 
not work. 
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 
<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.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth
        Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 7:45 AM
        To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
        Importance: High
        
        
        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