[Gnso-epdp-team] Last chance, last dance

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Feb 19 14:00:13 UTC 2019

Every group in ICANN has a different defintion of "Consensus". My recollection is that the ccNSO means unanimity. ALAC means 80%.

For a group that holds Charters as sacred, i would think we need to stick with the definition there.

Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On February 19, 2019 6:11:02 AM EST, Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja> wrote:
What we have shoud be qualified as „consensus“ as described in Alan’s note. Let me suggest we use the term „rough consenus“, though, to avoid confusion with the definition of consensus as used in the GAC.



Am 19.02.2019 um 07:00 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>:


If one group does not support it is not FULL CONSENSUS but why is it not CONSENSUS?

Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.

Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. [Note: For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of ‘Consensus’ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term ‘Consensus’ as this may have legal implications.]

Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it


At 18/02/2019 05:29 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hello Everyone:

Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned” from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.”

I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency.

We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.)

The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support.

The approach for suggested edits will be:

1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below.

2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written.

3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion.

The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice” I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing.

There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary:

Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact
Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance
Recommendation 11 - City field
Recommendation 12 - Organization field
Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions

For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted.

4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each  of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written.

Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus.  The team should look for solutions / compromise  solutions to avoid such a designation.

Talk to you all soon,


Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190219/e41a948b/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list