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

[Lars Hoffmann]

Dear all,

If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not
to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to
be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room
and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the
Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority
supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other
set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday¹s call.

Very best,
Lars




From:  Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at netistrar.com>
Date:  Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42
To:  Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Cc:  Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>,
"petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>, "Dillon,
Chris" <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

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 group¹s 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 ³Current state of discussion². Although this section is
> not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of
> recommendations hasn¹t 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 Œroadmap¹ 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 ³thick² 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 group¹s
>> deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co­Chairs 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 ³thick² WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
> 
>> In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris¹ straw man
>> and Petter¹s 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
>> Thursday¹s 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
<http://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/bedf1046/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5080 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20140930/bedf1046/smime.p7s>