[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Kiran Malancharuvil Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
Thu May 22 18:27:02 UTC 2014 

Marika,

How would you reconcile this with what happened during the IOC/RCRC Working Group when, in order to establish consensus for particularly contentious issues, there was a "poll" or "vote"? 

K

Kiran Malancharuvil 
Internet Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m) 

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. 

> On May 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Kiran, the GNSO WG Guidelines outline the process for the chairs on how to
> assess the level of support received which specifically does NOT include
> voting. I've copied the specific language below and as you can see it is
> intended to be an iterative process. I do want to note that the formal
> designation of the level of consensus typically takes place at the end of
> the process when recommendations are in the process of being finalised for
> inclusion into the Initial Report. In our case it is clear that many of
> the issues are tied together and the level of support may depend on the
> outcome on some of the other issues, so it may not be advisable or even
> possible to take formal consensus calls at this stage.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika 
> 
> From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6
> 
> The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on
> recommendations should work as follows:
> i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to
> have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make
> an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.
> ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation,
> the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated
> evaluation.
> iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an
> evaluation that is accepted by the group.
> iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable.
> Some of the reasons for this might be:
> o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for
> the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur.
> o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to
> arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to
> discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant
> Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and
> Divergence.
> 
> Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A
> liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is
> Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the
> meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22/05/14 18:37, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
> 
>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika
>> provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to
>> participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.
>> 
>> Kiran 
>> 
>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>> Internet Policy Counselor
>> MarkMonitor
>> 415-419-9138 (m) 
>> 
>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>> 
>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The
>>> working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone
>>> (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion
>>> counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward
>>> the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job
>>> of trying to determine what the consensus is.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is
>>>> under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C
>>>> input/feedback.
>>>> 
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly our point.  I believe you also made this point a couple weeks
>>>>> ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot
>>>>> of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there
>>>>> should probably be outreach on this point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> K
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> J.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members,
>>>>>>> we do
>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our
>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to
>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> K
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven"
>>>>>>> <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C,
>>>>>>> disagreedŠ.²  Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney at fwdstrategies.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM
>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings
>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven;
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the
>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the
>>>>>>> template
>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l,
>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your
>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Libby
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings
>>>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated
>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting
>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the
>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1.  Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion
>>>>>>> for C
>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested
>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other
>>>>>>> proposed edits?
>>>>>>> 2.  Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields
>>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
>>>>>>> 3.  Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it
>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact
>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P
>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for
>>>>>>> responses
>>>>>>> are also encouraged.
>>>>>>> 4.  Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on
>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P
>>>>>>> registrations and
>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings
>>>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>,
>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call.  Following up on
>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>> made on the call ----
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions
>>>>>>> C(threshold),
>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially
>>>>>>> welcomed!)
>>>>>>> proposed edits.  Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready
>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3:  If the following applies to you, please
>>>>>>> respond
>>>>>>> on the list:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to
>>>>>>> commercial
>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a
>>>>>>> difference in
>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed
>>>>>>> for p/p
>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)?  If the answer is YES, please
>>>>>>> specify
>>>>>>> the differences.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES
>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@
>>>>>>> icann
>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>> Konings
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
>>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG
>>>>>>> Meeting.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1.  Roll Call / SOI
>>>>>>> 2.  Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question,
>>>>>>> C1
>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don)
>>>>>>> 3.  Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of
>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached)
>>>>>>> 4.  Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
>>>>>>> 5.  Next steps / confirm next meeting
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD
>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International
>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com>
>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list