Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Summary of current positons

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Since I will not be at the meeting on Monday, here are a few 
thoughts/positions.
Q2: Name of the NCSG - I have already stated my views - 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-restruc-dt/msg00113.html
Q13: I strongly object to the proposed change to add "and members of 
the at-large community" to the definition of the NCSG. I particularly 
object to the further suggestion that "At-Large" be used, which would 
imply an explicit intersection of the formal ICANN At-Large 
organization and the GNSO. Even with the lower case version, this 
would cause continual confusion and the need for additional 
explanations ad infinitum. The original words "full range of 
non-commercial entities" were sufficiently clear and inclusive.
Q17: The third NCA lost its vote because there was no viable way to 
prevent it once the decision was made to place him/her on the Council 
but not in a house. There is NO rationale for removing any other 
privileges associates with being a Council member.
Q19: I don't think that we can leave the definition of "within scope" 
to legal council as suggested in line 76. We have no choice but to 
leave the interpretation of the definition to them, but there needs 
to be SOME basis on which to start.
Alan

At 21/05/2009 01:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Though a few days later then promised, attached is a snapshot of where
> the issues seems to stand at the moment.
>
> The tables were originally prepared by Margie and then edited by Chuck
> and me.  They contain our best approximation of the current levels of
> support but we are hoping that others will comment on the accuracy of
> those estimates and help correct any that are in error.   If possible
> I would like to put out an updated version of the table before our
> meeting, which is still tentatively scheduled for Monday.
>
> Please send any initial edit to the list.
>
> Other then for accounting for any responses we may receive from the
> Board/SIC to our questions, we need to start working toward consensus,
> or at least rough consensus, on all the issues.
>
> The agenda for our next meeting, after reviewing any responses we have
> gotten for the SIC or the Board, would be to read through the changes
> and try to close as many as possible.  I figure we will read thorugh
> the list at least twice so that everyone will have a chance to
> comment, even if she misses the first meeting.
>
> In terms of overall schedule I would really like to be able to present
> the DT's conclusions and motions for constituency and community review
> before Sydney, to have this on the open meeting agenda and to close it
> with a vote (or votes) at the council meeting following Sydney.
>
>
> thanks
>
> a.