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

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, what an unpleasant surprise this morning. 26 messages and an
inexplicable breakdown. 

I agree with Jon and Tony: we have consensus on a solution framework,
Philip and Avri should both accept a nonvoting Nomcom appointee, and the
issue of how the GNSO Council chair is elected and the default status of
the Nomcom appointee can be redlined. 

I say we declare victory, submit Jon's last amended version as the
report, and bring this to an end. 

--MM

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:29 AM
To: jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx;
philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report

 

The last few emails have almost seen defeat snatched from the jaws of
victory for this group, which after all the effort is extremely
disappointing. I fully support the points Jon has made below, and don't
accept Avri's categorisation of the ISPs as supporting the same line as
the BC. The statements below I concur with, which is certainly not the
position Philip has adopted.

 

Its true that we HAVE reached consensus on many issues, lets not throw
it all away. I suggest we still proceed as Jon proposes. Can others
support this?

 

 

Tony

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: 26 July 2008 10:55
To: Robert Hoggarth; Philip Sheppard
Cc: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Consensus Group Report
Importance: High

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