<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"></head>
<body>
Anne, as I said, that is subject to discussion and your position is
probably reasonable. This entire subject has many highly contentious
issues and perhaps we cannot move forward at all without accepting some
level of disagreement.<br><br>
But the leadership position would also include recommendations with
divergent support going forward...<br><br>
Perhaps there will not be any and this is a moot discussion. Or perhaps
not.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2020-12-23 03:28 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Alan,<br>
My concern here would be that there are some issues that arose from 2012
that the WG tried to address that may not have Consensus per se but that
do have Strong Support. Two examples might be improvements in
CPE evaluation championed by the ALAC and transparency requirements in
relation to the Auctions process. There are, in particular, certain
interests that may strongly oppose such improvements and may strongly
prefer to have a “fallback†to 2012 implementation. Thus, I
think the idea of eliminating improvements to the program that fall under
the “Strong Support†designation (as not constituting Recommendations
of the WG) is quite dangerous.<br>
<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>;
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>;
langdonorr@gmail.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations<br>
<br>
<b>[EXTERNAL]<br>
<hr>
</b>In the past, the GNSO Council had not ratified recommendations with
"Strong Support", but I suppose that could be a matter of
debate.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2020-12-23 01:29 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>I̢۪m a la little confused. As far as I know, a Recommendation
has consensus under the WG Guidelines if it has either
<dd>(a) Full Consensus
<dd>(b) Consensus, or
<dd>(c) Strong Support.
<dd>What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be
made if it does not have Full Consensus? If that were the case,
there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through
for Recommendations that only achieve “Consensusâ†or “Strong
Supportâ€. I sp; I would expect to see many “Consensusâ€
desidesignations and “Strong support†designationtions by
Leadership for various Recommendations.
<dd>Anne
<dd>
<dd>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg
via Gnso-newgtld-wg
<dd>Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:12 AM
<dd>To:
<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
<dd>
<dd>[EXTERNAL]<hr>
<dd>+1
<dd>
<dd>Marc H. Trachtenberg
<dd>Shareholder
<dd>Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice
<dd>Greenberg Traurig, LLP
<dd>77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
<dd>T +1 312.456.1020
<dd>M +1 773.677.3305
<dd><a href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com">trac@gtlaw.com</a>
 | <a href="http://www.gtlaww.gtlaw.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.gtlaww.gtlaw.com</a>  | 
<a href="https://www.gtlaw.cotlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h">
View GT Biography </a><br><br>
<dd>
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20201223154811.0b016600@mcgill.ca.1" width="192" height="31" alt="Greenberg Traurig">
<dd>
<dd>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
<dd>Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM
<dd>To: New gTLD SubPro <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>>
<dd>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
<dd>
<dd>*EXTERNAL TO GT*
<dd>I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here
for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the
recording.<br>
<dd>Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of
consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall
correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the
final report.<br><br>
<dd>For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as
defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if
a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus
and is still labelled as a "Recommendation".<br>
<dd>Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG
consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a
"Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council
chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board.<br>
<dd>That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified
recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with
Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No
Consensus").<br>
<dd>There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such
recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving
recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we
should be taking a prudent stance going forward.<br>
<dd>We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to
have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not
know if there is really agreement or not.<br>
<dd>If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as
Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion
AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal
recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board
violates our basic operating principles.<br>
<dd>I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific
recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus.
Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the
final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is
similarly no consensus on the recommendation?<br>
<dd>Alan<hr>
<dd>If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged
information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at
<a href="mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com">postmaster@gtlaw.com</a>, and do
not use or disseminate the information.<hr>
<dd>This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information
transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is
intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended
recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. <br><br>
</dl><br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size="1" color="#808080"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information
transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is
intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended
recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. <br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>