<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear all,</div><div><br></div><div>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 Thursday’s call.</div><div><br></div><div>Very best,</div><div>Lars</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Emily Taylor <<a href="mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com">emily.taylor@netistrar.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> Lars HOFFMANN <<a href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org">lars.hoffmann@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu">petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu</a>" <<a href="mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu">petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu</a>>, "Dillon, Chris" <<a href="mailto:c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk">c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><div dir="ltr">Hi there
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br>
Emily</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org" target="_blank">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Some more comments in line below:</div><br><div><span class=""><div>On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <<a href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org" target="_blank">lars.hoffmann@icann.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:TrebuchetMS;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Hi Amr, Emily, all<u></u><u></u></font></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">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.<u></u><u></u></font></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Just a quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing the important points that have been raised.<u></u><u></u></font></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">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 </font>Thursday'<font face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.</font></font></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Thanks. That sounds great.</div><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:TrebuchetMS;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></font></font></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
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.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>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 (<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois</a>).</div><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:TrebuchetMS;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
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.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>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.</div><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family:TrebuchetMS;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
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.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Amr</div></font></span></div><br><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>
-- <br><div dir="ltr"><p style="font-size:small;font-family:arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-weight:bold;margin:0px"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Emily Taylor</font></p><p style="font-size:small;font-family:arial;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1.5em"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><i style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">MA(Cantab), MBA</i><br><font color="#38761d">Director</font></font></p><p style="font-size:small;margin-bottom:60px"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b style="font-family:arial;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Netistrar Limited</b><br><font color="#000000" style="font-family:arial">661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL </font><font color="#38761d" style="font-family:arial">| T:</font><font color="#000000" style="font-family:arial"> +44 1865 582811 </font><font color="#38761d" style="font-family:arial">|
M:</font><font color="#000000" style="font-family:arial"> +44 7540 049322</font><br><font color="#38761d" style="font-family:arial">E:</font><font color="#000000" style="font-family:arial"> </font><a href="mailto:emily.taylor@netistrar.com" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial" target="_blank">emily.taylor@netistrar.com</a><font color="#000000" style="font-family:arial"> </font><font color="#38761d" style="font-family:arial">|
W:</font><font color="#000000" style="font-family:arial"> <a href="http://www.netistrar.com" target="_blank">www.netistrar.com</a></font></font></p><p style="font-size:small;margin-bottom:60px"><img src="http://www.netistrar.com/wp-content/themes/carfax-child/assets/img/Netistrar_Domain_Name_Registrar.gif" width="200" height="50" style="color:rgb(170,170,170);font-family:arial,helvetica,san-serif"></p><p style="font-size:small;margin-bottom:60px"><span style="color: rgb(170, 170, 170); font-family: arial, helvetica, san-serif;">Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583.
VAT No. 190062332</span></p></div></div></div></div></span></body></html>