[council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5

Tue Aug 8 23:27:09 UTC 2017

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the response.
reading Phil clarification, I understand that the concerns are about
replicating CCWG methods&framework in WT5 in particular when he describes
decision-making process: having the notion of voting representatives from
each SO/AC and all that means in term of changing the nature of usual
consensus-building in GNSO working group.

Best,

Rafik

2017-08-09 0:39 GMT+09:00 Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>:

> Phil,
>
>
>
> I cannot post to the Council list, so if you or someone could repost….
>
>
>
> Where in the Working Group Guidelines does it state your position?  See
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-
> group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf, Section 2.3.  The only thing in
> Section 2.3 that comes close to addressing this is…”* the Chair should
> ensure that the sub-team is properly balanced with the appropriate skills
> and resources to ensure successful completion. It is recommended that the
> sub-team appoints a co-ordinator who heads up the sub-team and is
> responsible for providing regular progress updates to the Working Group.”*
>
>
>
> Nothing in that section would prohibit the determination of consensus
> within that group to be like that in a CCWG.  Again with the caveat that
> the it then goes to the SubPro PDP full working group to then measure
> consensus in accordance with the Working Group guidelines.
>
>
>
> 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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
> *From:* council-bounces at gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 10:13 AM
> *To:* Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5
>
>
>
> Thanks Rafik.
>
>
>
> To be as clear as possible, I have no concern with and actively support
> efforts to engage leadership and participation from groups outside of GNSO
> - and specifically ALAC and GAC -- in WT5 efforts focusing on Geo names in
> any subsequent round.
>
>
>
> I am merely trying to ascertain that the method by which WT5 adopts any
> recommendations that it reports up to the full WG will be one that is
> consistent with PDP procedures and not one that is modeled on CCWG decision
> making procedures, including voting representatives from each SO/AC. While
> I understand that the full WG's final recommendations will be determined in
> the usual PDP manner, I do not believe it is permissible or advisable to
> permit a different decision making process at the subteam level.
>
>
>
> I hope that clarifies my position.
>
>
>
> Best, Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Founding Principal
>
> Virtualaw LLC
>
> 1155 F Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20004
>
> 202-559-8597/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
>
>
> Twitter: @VLawDC
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:29 PM
> *To:* Phil Corwin
> *Cc:* Heather Forrest; GNSO Council List
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5
>
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
>
>
> if I understand correctly the work track outcome will go to the whole
> working group anyway. We are not following the CCWG framework here with
> voting representatives from each SO/AC etc. The working group is only
> asking ccNSO and GAC to nominate a co-leaders but that doesn't change the
> open membership of the group or how it will use consensus. Since ccNSO and
> GAC are not chartering organizations here, I don't see any change in the
> decision-making process and the GNSO retain the control, if it is right to
> say that, of the whole process.
>
>
>
> I understand there are concerns about CCWG be seen as the silver bullet
> for all issues but I believe we are crystal clear that gTLD policies are
> the remit of solely GNSO (like in our responses to GAC communique). Getting
> other stakeholders input and participation is consistent with the GNSO PDP
> manual.
>
>
>
> do you have some example of risk in mind? will a more explicit outline of
> the decision making, aligned with GNSO OP, within the WT5 and in relation
> to the WG alleviate your concerns? I think we can also request the council
> liaison to the WG to follow the WT5 more closely.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2017-08-08 7:28 GMT+09:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:
>
> My primary concern relates to whether the decision making process to be
> used by the sub team would be permissible for the full WG and is consistent
> with relevant GNSO rules and guidelines. If it makes such decisions in the
> manner of a CCWG, and they are then subject to subsequent reversal or
> substantial modification using a different decisional approach, that could
> exacerbate rather than ameliorate the debate.
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>
> Virtualaw LLC
>
> 1155 F Street, NW
>
> Suite 1050
>
> Washington, DC 20004
>
> 202-559-8597/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
>
>
> Twitter: @VLawDC
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Jeff's email below deals with some of the questions raised here on the
> list about SubPro WT5. James, Donna and I can update further after we talk
> with the SubPro leadership tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Heather
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Jeff Neuman* <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> Date: Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:49 AM
> Subject: Note on Work Track 5
> To: "James Bladel (jbladel at godaddy.com)" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Heather
> Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, "Austin, Donna" <
> Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
> Cc: avri doria <avri at apc.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, Emily
> Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> It seems that there have been a number of questions on the operation and
> establishment of Work Track 5 on the GNSO Council Mailing list.  I am not
> able to post on that list, but ask that this be forwarded.  I have not run
> this response by Avri, but I would hope she agrees.
>
>
>
> According to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, found at
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-
> group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf, Section 2.3 states:
>
>
>
> *“2.3. Use of Sub-Teams *
>
>
>
> *The WG may decide to employ sub-teams as an efficient means of delegating
> topics or assignments to be completed. Sub-team members need to have a
> clear understanding of issues they work on as well as the results to be
> achieved. The members of sub-teams report their results to whole working
> group for review and approval. The WG should indicate whether or not it
> would like to have meetings of the sub-team recorded and/or transcribed. *
>
>
>
> *Any member of the WG may serve on any sub-team; however, depending upon
> the specific tasks to be accomplished, the Chair should ensure that the
> sub-team is properly balanced with the appropriate skills and resources to
> ensure successful completion. It is recommended that the sub-team appoints
> a co-ordinator who heads up the sub-team and is responsible for providing
> regular progress updates to the Working Group.*
>
>
>
> *There is no need for formal confirmation by the CO or WG of such a
> co-ordinator. *
>
>
>
> *The lifespan of a sub-team should not extend beyond that of the Working
> Group. Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger
> working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.  “*
>
>
>
> This is what Avri and I are doing.  We are setting up a “Sub Team” which
> we are calling a “Work Track.”  Other than the last sentence of ensuring
> that all decisions go to the larger working group, there are no other
> restrictions on the operation of a Sub Team. Therefore, we believe that the
> choice of leadership, how meetings are conducted, the name of the group,
> membership, etc. is at our (the co-chair’s) discretion.
>
>
>
> Yes, all of the recommendations from this Work Track will of course go to
> the full Working Group, just as they will for all of the other Work Tracks.
>
>
>
> On the question of whether this will set a precedent on how Sub Teams will
> be used in the future, I will leave that to the folks who look back at this
> time period in 15 years or so.  But if it works and strengthens the
> multi-stakeholder process, while still having it operate under the rubric
> of the GNSO, would that not be a positive precedent?
>
>
>
> I appreciate the Council interest in this and encourage you all to bring
> that enthusiasm to Work Track 5.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any other questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170809/e6d4d5dc/attachment.html>