[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

[Emily Taylor]

Hi there

I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team.  I would also
welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage.
It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out).  I think
it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and
understand the range of opinions within the group.

Best

Emily

On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in
> bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be
> determined on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the
> draft report. Part of reporting a working group’s progress at this stage
> should be reporting to the public where the WG participants stand. So
> again, I ask that we determine these consensus levels and replace the
> findings with the observation made on page 14 under “Current state of
> discussion”. Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is
> only because a consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t been
> requested by the WG chairs. That could be remedied.
>
> Some more comments in line below:
>
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr, Emily, all
>
>
> Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point
> out that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report.
>
>
> Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also
> addressing the important points that have been raised.
>
>
> Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet
> ready to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor
> during) ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a
> substantial draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue
> discussing the draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face
> meeting. Potentially, further feedback from the community might come
> forward and feed into further amendments following LA. Only then would it
> the Initial Report be put out for public comment.
>
>
> Thanks. That sounds great.
>
> Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide
> clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been
> discussed (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the
> two logical recommendations that flow from these different sides of the
> arguments:  mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This
> would be done to help encourage community feedback during the public
> comment period that follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51.
>
>
> Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not
> preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example,
> with the initial and final reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG (
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois).
>
> Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level
> call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option.
> This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group’s
> deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs could decide not
> to determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that
> community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the
> formal Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant
> input from the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the
> Final Report that will only contain one set of recommendations, to be
> determined after the formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point,
> Minority Statement(s), if needed, can still be produced and attached to the
> Final Report. You may be interested to know that this approach was also
> recently followed for the IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs.
>
>
> True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative
> one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is
> informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a
> result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in
> both reports of the “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
>
> In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw
> man and Petter’s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to
> move forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to
> read though the document? I would be able to amend the document very
> quickly after Thursday’s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the
> WG membership.
>
>
> Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your
> willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)
>
> Amr
>
>
>


-- 

Emily Taylor

*MA(Cantab), MBA*
Director

*Netistrar Limited*
661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44
7540 049322
E: emily.taylor at netistrar.com | W: www.netistrar.com

Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote,
Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT
No. 190062332
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20140930/bedb619c/attachment.html>