[council] Motion SubPro WG Final Report

Steve Chan steve.chan at icann.org
Wed Feb 10 17:31:25 UTC 2021

Dear Maxim,


I just wanted to respond to one aspect of your email, regarding the minority statements. There was certainly no ill intent or any effort to hide the minority statements. Staff and the co-chairs elected to include a link to where the minority statements would be stored on the Wiki in an effort to get all relevant materials to the Council in a timely manner. When we saw there were objections to this approach, we were happy to course correct and integrate the minority statements in their entirety into the Final Report. 





From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 7:22 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion SubPro WG Final Report


Hello all, 


First of all I do not remember that the Council as a whole have already started consultations with the PDP Leadership,

and I do not think this as a views of GAC relayed via the Council liaison.


Indeed it was a discussion of what to do with the motion, and discussion among the Councillors.


I agree with Kurt that the idea of combining of other PDPs with the work on SubPro is a bad idea

(usually such mixes produce bad synergy, where the timing is worse than just combined timeline due to necessity of synchronization).


We should not conflate non-objection of members (given the not so stellar attendance of the WG meetings, which to some degree reflects activity) 

with support in the assessment of the consensus. 


When something is not a consensus view, it is not (and there is no need to smuggle it via the GNSO Council using the additional wording).


I do not think that extremely inventive approach in consensus measurement might be seen as a good example

of a multistakeholder bottom up process.


Looking at the GNSO Operating Procedures , Annex 2: Policy Development Process Manual, 

we can clearly see

"In the event that the Final Report includes recommendations that did not achieve the consensus within the PDP Team, the GNSO Council should deliberate on whether to adopt them or remand the recommendations for further analysis and work."


Not necessary such work needs to be done ASAP and by the same PDP WG with the same Leadership team.


Frankly saying since the WG assessed items one by one and not as the whole there is no reason to worry about this change (effectively leaving

the troubled subitems of rec. 35 as a current status quo).


So it is up to the Council what should be done with such recommendations which did not achieve consensus.


P.s: using the basic logic, when we see an explanation of what was used in SubPro for the items without agreement on what to do

(consensus) , for example in the Presentation 

we might think that it was meant ...

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Final Report

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2021/presentation/slides-SubPro-GNSO-Council-Webinar-28Jan21.pdf [gnso.icann.org]

page 8, 

Absent agreement for a change, the “status quo” is the default position.


but reading the justification for GNSO Council to approve these troubled items 

(subitems of rec. 35, which did not achieve the required status),

I am not sure what was it (during the years of repetitions "of status quo when the agreement is not there"

in SubPro).


P.s: for your information there was already an objection to the consensus call destination

for the very same subitems of rec. 35

(a good illustration of the inventive approach to the measurement)



P.P.s: the minority statements (which contain important information about reasons of the WG members) in the Final Report were replaced with the URL, which was corrected only after a direct request.


Combined this does not look good. 


Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,

m. +7 916 6761580 (+telegram, +signal, -whatsapp)

skype oldfrogger


Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) 



On 9 Feb 2021, at 07:33, Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:


Thanks Kurt for the in depth response and if I may I would like to provide my perspective as one of the co-chairs since we are mentioned in the body of your e-mail.

I agree with Kurt that the ongoing issues (IDNs and DNS Abuse) should not prevent the Final Report from being approved.  There is time to work on those issues in parallel with the IRT, drafting the Applicant Guidebook, etc.  
On the first issue though, I disagree with removing the recommendation that the Board take into consideration what the report has to say including the minority statements for the following reasons:
To recommend against implementing the 2 recommendations that had Strong Support but Significant Opposition, ignores the plain fact that the WG Chairs deemed the proposal to have Strong Support.  This means, “while most of the group supports a recommendations, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.”
So with respect to the two recommendations, “MOST of the group supports the recommendation.”  Just not enough for Consensus. To disregard the fact that these two recommendations had support from MOST of the group, just because it did not reach consensus, and to actually propose the Board implement the opposite of what Most of the group supported, is a bizarre outcome. 
On the other hand, to recommend that the Board definitively implement something that did not have Consensus may also be problematic.
However…….here is why the current resolution makes sense:
This PDP does NOT involve setting Consensus Policies as that definition is used in the contracts or the Bylaws.
This PDP involves both “Non-Consensus Policies” and implementation processes.
By NOT making a recommendation to “implement” those areas without consensus, we are empowering the Board to make its own assessment based on  the best available information.
On the other hand, if we make a recommendation AGAINST implementing those areas without consensus (as Kurt proposes), then when the Board considers the information, if it wants to implement the areas (again which MOST people in the working group supported), it has to jump through the Bylaw hoops in Section 9 of the Bylaws.  

To restate:  IF the Council recommends against implementing proposals that most of the Working Group supported, then the Board will have to go through a lengthy unwieldy process if it agrees with most of the Working Group (albeit not a consensus) on those recommendations.  By not recommending one way or another, (i) the Council does not substitute its view for that of the Working Group, and (ii) the Council makes it easier for the Board to implement which ever position it finds is in the best interests of the community and not have to worry about jumping through Bylaw hoops.


Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff at jjnsolutions.comhttp://jjnsolutions.com [jjnsolutions.com]



From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:53 PM
To: philippe.fouquart at orange.com
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Motion SubPro WG Final Report


Hi Philippe and Flip:
The bottom line to this email is that I believe the Council should have a discussion with respect to how:

1. the two recommendations not enjoying consensus support are forwarded to the Board, and
2. whether other ongoing policy issues should be allowed to intervene in the adoption and implementation of the Final Report

I do not think these discussions preclude a vote on the report, even if they do result in a modification to the Motion. 
With regard to the first issue: 
The Motion Flip ably drafted lays out the situation for us. We have a voluminous report with many recommendations, the vast majority of which enjoy consensus support. I believe our role is urge the Board to adopt those, which I think the resolution does. 
I also believe that the Council should provide specific advice to the Board regarding the resolutions that have not received consensus support. I have come to this belief because: 

1. In the past, Board members have always strongly encouraged any specific advice the Council or other policy-making bodies have to offer. The Board will appreciate the input from the Council given it is the GNSO’s responsibility to develop policy not the Board. 
2. The SubPro report is silent on the issue, providing no direction to the Board. The record of the SubPro deliberations indicates that a concern was raised that the Council would approve all recommendations regardless of support level and the Board would adopt them. The WG decided however, to not provide advice for the handling of these issues and rather leave it to the discretion of the Council. I think we should take that charge and discuss the issue raised but not addressed by the WG. It does not make sense that the WG has deferred to the Council and the Council is precluded from taking up the issue.
3. ICANN is a consensus-based organization and the Council should indicate to the Board that they cannot / should not easily create programmatic requirements that are not supported by community consensus. 
4. From the start, the Co-Chairs were clear that where the WG could not reach consensus that the status quo would prevail. It was never the intention to punt those decisions to the Board. It would be inappropriate to change those understandings across the WG at this stage.
5. The recommendations are not so inter-related to the other recommendations that they cannot be separated out without affecting the adoption and implementation of the other recommendations. They are readily separable. 

I believe that providing advice to the Board on the two non-consensus supported recommendations will also result in the fastest adoption and implementation of the Final Report.

1. It will provide a roadmap to the Board and facilitate their discussion. The Board repeatedly states it does not make policy.  If there no advice on the handling of “non-consensus recommendations,” the Board is likely to request clarification from the Council.
2. It will serve to avoid a re-litigation of the issues during implementation. 
3. It avoids an alternate discussion regarding the designation of consensus. By that I mean that, if the Council is precluded from this discussion, the only remaining discussion for the Council or the Board to gain an understanding of the support for the “non-consensus” recommendations is to study how consensus levels were designated. That might require requests for information and reports that would extend the process in a contentious manner. 

Therefore, I believe the Council should discuss whether to provide advice to the Board that: (1) the myriad of  recommendations supported by consensus of the  WG should be adopted, and (2) those not supported in such a manner should not be adopted. 
With regard to the second issue: 
It has been raised by the SubPro WG leadership that the Board / ICANN staff / others have recommended that the SubPro implementation should be tolled pending outcomes of IDN and DNS Abuse work. 
It is worth discussing a potential amendment to the motion that indicates that the Council recommends that the SubPro Report should be adopted and implemented without delaying for other policy outcomes. 
The primary rationale for such a resolution would be that: (1) there is always some ongoing policy initiative and we cannot wait for all issues to be decided before moving ahead or any progress might become impossible, and (2) the IDN and abuse issues affect all TLDs, not just gTLDs and especially not yet-to-be born gTLDs. 
I think such a resolution would provide cover for the Board to move ahead, and also provide a service to the ICANN model to, in some way, expedite the work of ICANN.

I hope you accept this overly long email in the spirit it was intended. This has been a long effort on the part of many people and we should not short-change that effort in our consideration for expediency. I think this is important. 
Best regards,



On Feb 8, 2021, at 10:37 AM, <philippe.fouquart at orange.com> <philippe.fouquart at orange.com> wrote:


Dear Councilors,


Having discussed this within the leadership, and with the WG chairs and the liaison, you would have noted that we approached this motion for the SubPro final report in the most straightforward and simple way, both in terms of timing and framing: 

-          the SubPro motion is up for a vote at the next Council call; and 

-          it’s all-in-one package - with the phrasing that Flip described, depending on the degree of consensus reached.


Given the importance of the work of SuPro for the Community, we pondered over the need for another discussion item at the next Council call and wanted offer all opportunities for Council to discuss this as much as necessary. On the other hand we did want to take into account the feedback we have received so far and not overstretch our exchanges unnecessarily.


Our appreciation of the feedback/questions/concerns expressed during both our discussion item at the last council call and the SubPro final report webinar lead us to believe that having the above was the best approach. 


If this assessment is inaccurate and if some councillors/SG-Cs consider that our January discussion item and the webinar do not suffice for them to be fully informed on the motion prior to our vote, it is your time to say so. 


Flip remains available for assistance if need be for any clarification, but again we want to make sure everyone’s duly informed and comfortable when the time of voting comes.






From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Flip Petillion
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:00 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Motion SubPro WG Final Report


Dear Councilors,


Attached please find a Motion to Adoption of the Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report.


The motion is structured in such a way that the Council will be voting on the Final Report as one package.  That said, because two of the hundreds of Outputs had strong support but significant opposition, we have bifurcated the resolved clauses to (a) recommend the implementation of those Outputs that had either consensus or full consensus designations and (b) consider the Outputs that have strong support but significant opposition as well as the associated rationale in the report and the minority statements.


We believe that providing the entire report to the Board for its consideration is important for the Board to understand how we arrived at where we are and to give those very few areas without consensus some context.  We are not stating that the Board MUST implement those elements that did not have consensus, but we are giving them full information so that either they can make a decision on how to proceed on those, or ask for future work.


Although there are these couple Outputs that did not attain at least Consensus, and one Output (Closed Generics) where there is consensus that there is no agreement, we do not believe that a Council substantive discussion on these issues or remanding it back to the Working Group, would result in a different result.  There are good arguments on all sides of these issues and the Working Group spent  a number of years trying to come up with compromise proposals without success. These are areas where we believe that guidance from the Board will be necessary to make further progress on these issues.


Should you have questions, I am at your disposal for a call to discuss these. I would appreciate it should you share your questions in the list beforehand.


Respectfully submitted, 




Flip Petillion

fpetillion at petillion.law


www.petillion.law [petillion.law]


<image001.png> [petillion.law]


  Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org

By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210210/7ac8be54/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210210/7ac8be54/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210210/7ac8be54/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list