<div dir="ltr">Dear all, <div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">This is to inform you that, I have recently moved to another country for work reasons and the time zone where I am now based is UTC +7. Since this working group has its sessions scheduled at 19UTC, it makes it difficult for me to attend the conference calls.</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Therefore, I have taken the decision to withdraw from this particular working group. Since Cintra is the main NPOC representative and I am the alternate, I trust this won´t disrupt too much the work of the group. I wish you all the best of luck and please keep up with the good work you have all been doing so far! </div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Best,</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
Marie-laure </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:GShatan@reedsmith.com" target="_blank">GShatan@reedsmith.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself). There are really 2 problems here.<br>
<br>
1. Dealing with the "consensus against" problem. This is our explicit assignment.<br>
2. The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places. There is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the same thing), inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or similar phrase when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc.<br>
<br>
We are trying to solve both problems at the same time. We started down this road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps Divergence). Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the document), we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them. In my day job, I call this "drafting creep." The problem with drafting creep is that it opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, and intertwines those two sets of issues in a way that complicates review by others. This is what Marika is seeing.<br>
<br>
I think we need to reverse course for the moment. I think both (1) and (2) above are problems that need to be addressed. But only (1) is really on our plate.<br>
<br>
I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off the current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus against" issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, below).<br>
<br>
At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue.<br>
<br>
Just my thoughts. I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of a messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I can.<br>
<br>
Greg Shatan<br>
<br>
Gregory S. Shatan<br>
Partner<br>
Reed Smith LLP<br>
599 Lexington Avenue<br>
New York, NY 10022<br>
212.549.0275 (Phone)<br>
917.816.6428 (Mobile)<br>
212.521.5450 (Fax)<br>
<a href="mailto:gshatan@reedsmith.com" target="_blank">gshatan@reedsmith.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.reedsmith.com" target="_blank">www.reedsmith.com</a><br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM<br>
To: Marika Konings<br>
Cc: <<a href="mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I’d be grateful if you pointed out the specifics in the document on today’s call. I have to admit, I’ve been struggling with it. I’m no lawyer…, that’s for sure. :)<br>
<br>
In any case, the sub-team’s intent has always been to address revisions to take into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the situation, as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case with the IGO/INGO WG). That’s probably why the definition of divergence is the only one that hasn’t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on the rest so far.<br>
<br>
Still…, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously suggested:<br>
<br>
1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI finalises them.<br>
2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see if they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been some recommendations not to do this).<br>
3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when consensus is for or against WG recommendations.<br>
<br>
Thanks again, Marika.<br>
<br>
Amr<br>
<br>
On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org" target="_blank">marika.konings@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do<br>
> these changes address the specific question that was put forward by<br>
> the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically<br>
> requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend<br>
> revised or additional language to apply to situations where working<br>
> groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal<br>
> such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be<br>
> described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be<br>
> helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the<br>
> specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing<br>
> something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the call later today.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> Marika<br>
><br>
> On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org" target="_blank">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> I¹ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft<br>
>> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I¹ve<br>
>> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look<br>
>> forward to a discussion on this during today¹s call.<br>
>><br>
>> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to<br>
>> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, CintraŠ, my apologies.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks.<br>
>><br>
>> Amr<br>
>><br>
><br>
> <default.xml><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div> * * *<br>
<br>
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered<br>
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in<br>
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply<br>
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or<br>
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other<br>
person. Thank you for your cooperation.<br>
<br>
* * *<br>
<br>
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we<br>
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax<br>
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not<br>
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)<br>
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state<br>
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another<br>
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.<br>
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>