[council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5

Wed Aug 9 03:25:34 UTC 2017

Dear Phil, all,

As I understand it, there's no functional, procedural or other difference
(other than the scope of topics covered) between WT5 and any of the
existing work tracks in the SubPro PDP (ie, WT1, WT2, WT3, WT4).

We didn't ask these questions in relation to the existing worktracks (some
of which have leaders from outside of the GNSO).

So while I appreciate Phil's concerns about precedent, if that's the worry,
then we crossed that bridge when SubPro was set up (and I don't believe we
have -  this is business as usual, with extra efforts to be inclusive by
separating out a particular topic to its own WT so that other members of
the community who don't care about the other things in scope in existing
WT2 can be efficient in their participation).

Others (including Jeff and Avri) can correct me if I'm mistaken.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> I'm on vacation in Maine and just saw Jeff's response, which I appreciate.
>
>
> For the sake of efficiency, let me pose two questions, as it may not be
> necessary to go deeper depending on the answers:
>
> --Will WT 5 be providing an analytical and data framework for the full WG
> to decide on policy recommendations regarding Geo names in subsequent
> rounds, or will it be forwarding specific policy recommendations to the
> full WG?
>
> --If it will be forwarding specific policy recommendations to the WG, by
> what decision making process will it arrive at those recommendations? In
> this regard, how would one characterize the difference between the manner
> in which a GNSO PDP WG determines concensus and that in which a CCWG
> determines consensus.
>
>
> I am not trying to be difficult, but I believe there are some important
> precedents and potential pitfalls and want to make sure that I fully
> understand what is contemplated before commenting further.
>
>
> Thanks, Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Founding Principal
>
> Virtualaw LLC
>
> 1155 F Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20004
>
> 202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell
>
>
> Twitter: @VLawDC
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:27 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman
> *Cc:* Phil Corwin; GNSO Council List; James Bladel (jbladel at godaddy.com);
> Heather Forrest; avri at apc.org; Steve Chan
>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5
>
> 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.i
>> cann.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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
>>
>> 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
>>
>> 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
>>
>> 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
>>
>> 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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/d1548ee2/attachment.html>