[council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5

Wed Aug 9 14:16:07 UTC 2017

Heather et al:

As just explained in a response to Jeff, if there is indeed no difference between WT5 and the other four subteams created by the SubPro WG then my concerns have no basis. As explained there, my sole concern relates to the potential use of a CCWG voting methodology to determine the final recommendations of a GNSO PDP WG subteam, which I don't view as permissible or advisable.

That concern does not mean that I am opposed to the taking of affirmative steps to encourage participation of non-GNSO entities, including the GAC and ALAC, in WT5 -- including its leadership. In particular, encouraging greater GAC participation in the PDP process has been a goal of the Council since I've been on it and is one that I fully support.

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: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Rafik Dammak; Jeff Neuman; GNSO Council List; James Bladel (jbladel at godaddy.com); avri at apc.org; Steve Chan
Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Note on Work Track 5

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<mailto: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<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct

202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax

202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell

Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>); Heather Forrest; avri at apc.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:+1%20703-635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:+1%20202-549-5079>
@Jintlaw

From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> [mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct

202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax

202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell

Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:(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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>)" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>
Cc: avri doria <avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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/e2c69a00/attachment.html>