[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"
Jeff Neuman
jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
Wed Sep 5 18:17:08 UTC 2018
Greg,
I appreciate the comments, though I notice that you made some assumptions which were are not accurate or certainly unintended.
But let me revise the proposal to make things more clear (See Below). If I could ask a favor with your next set of comments. If you think the proposal can be made better, please suggest changes that may make things more palatable to you.
Bottom line Greg is that we know that “Groups” are preparing to submit comments. Having liaisons to help this Working Group understand A Group’s position (or positions or for that matter a non-position) will be helpful to the Working Group.
We have noted your objection and hope that the text below makes sense.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for the great discussion over the past week or so on our previous note seeking representatives from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, Constituency, Stakeholder Group, etc. For ease of reference I will use the term “Group” so I do not have to list our all of those different organizations throughout this e-mail.
Last week, we had a meeting with the Leadership team of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, including both of our GNSO Council Liaisons. The bulk of the call was devoted to this issue and we had a healthy exchange on all of the benefits and drawbacks of the initial proposal. Here is where I believe we came out:
The Leadership team would like to continue to request that each Group provide one person and an alternate (if desired) to serve as a “liaison” between that Group and our Working Group.
1. The role of the “liaison” will be to serve as an empowered point person that the Working Group could turn to for the following:
* To help explain the Group’s position(s) on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s)(if any);
* To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted;
* To be responsible for seeking the Group’s position(s)(If any) on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; and
* To be responsible to the Working Group for seeking input from the group on any recommendations that the Working Group may come up with in the future.
At this point, we are not seeking to have these liaisons to serve in any other official capacity including for the purposes of helping Cheryl and I determine Consensus. We are merely using this as a tool to help us effectively solicit input from the Groups.
For the avoidance of doubt, we recognize that Groups may not have a unified position (or any position for that matter) on any particular item or items. In situations where there is more than one position, the liaison will be expected to garner comments on each of the positions for which comments are sought on behalf of the Group. We also recognize that a Group may have no position on a particular issue, in which case, the liaison will be expected to let the Working Group know that that is the case.
Please stay tuned for additional information, but if you culd please still let us know by September 26th (the data Public Comments are due) who will serve in these liaison type roles.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President | Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:13 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"
As drafted, this (still) seems to assume that each "Group" will have a (single) opinion or position. This is not unheard, of course, but it is also not assumed in the PDP process nor in our Charter. I sympathize with the difficulty of the Co-Chair's task in trying to identify consensus positions with broad support,while avoiding results with highly imbalanced support (or, at its most extreme version, actual "capture").
I'm afraid that this proposal drains the consensus-building and consensus-calling process of all subtlety and pushes us toward party politics and voting.
It also dampens the participation of individuals in a group who may have varying opinions, which would be a shame, since this can be a fruitful source for generating better ideas.
Even if we recognize that some "Groups" may not have a "position," the rewards for having a Group position will become too great, since a Group without position will essentially have no voice. Of course, it would have the voices of its individual members, but these voices become muted in this process.
There may still be merit in the idea of a liaison, but the rest of the proposal -- the assumptions regarding the roles of the Groups vs the participants -- leave me concerned.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:51 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
Sorry, this note got sent too soon by accident. Please see added paragraph at the end in red.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All,
Thank you for the great discussion over the past week or so on our previous note seeking representatives from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, Constituency, Stakeholder Group, etc. For ease of reference I will use the term “Group” so I do not have to list our all of those different organizations throughout this e-mail.
Last week, we had a meeting with the Leadership team of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, including both of our GNSO Council Liaisons. The bulk of the call was devoted to this issue and we had a healthy exchange on all of the benefits and drawbacks of the initial proposal. Here is where I believe we came out:
1. The Leadership team would like to continue to request that each Group provide one person and an alternate (if desired) to serve as a “liaison” between that Group and our Working Group.
2. The role of the “liaison” will be to serve as an empowered point person that the Working Group could turn to for the following:
* To help explain the Group’s position on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s);
* To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted;
* To be responsible for seeking the Group’s position on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; and
* To be responsible to the Working Group for seeking input from the group on any recommendations that the Working Group may come up with in the future.
At this point, we are not seeking to have these liaisons to serve in any other official capacity including for the purposes of helping Cheryl and I determine Consensus. We are merely using this as a tool to help us effectively solicit input from the Groups.
Please stay tuned for additional information, but if you culd please still let us know by September 26th (the data Public Comments are due) who will serve in these liaison type roles.
Thank you for all of your feedback and input on this issues. We are listening to you and we hope this helps clarify our thinking process.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President | Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180905/c9b01875/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list