[Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach

Tue Jan 15 01:28:15 UTC 2019

Stephanie, All,

Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to
Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some
misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups
and Constituencies.  Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each
separately represented in the EPDP WG.  The Charter recognizes that the
IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page
12):

Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group
and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3
Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken
down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency).

The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C"
(Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the
"SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's
discussion of consensus (also page 12):

For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to
represent the formal position of their *SG/C* or SO/AC, not individual
views or positions. [emphasis added]

This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop
"formal positions" at the Constituency level.

Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart
on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation
is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG
representation is set out at the SG level.  This is consistent with other
GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as
members of their Constituency.

To clearly correct prior statements on this list:  *IPC, BC and ISPCP
representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based
on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also
based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies.*

Regards and safe travels.

Alex (on behalf of the IPC)

___________
*Alex Deacon*
Cole Valley Consulting
alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
+1.415.488.6009

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with
> Kristina's alternative proposal.  Here are a few of the reasons why:
>
> 1.  While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation
> issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach
> consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach
> does nothing to help with that issue.  Representation here is by SG/AC not
> by constituency.
>
> 2.  As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably
> linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now.
> Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the
> challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are.
>
> 3.  The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time.
> Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help.  I
> am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read
> the comments.   A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we
> debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary.  I am
> truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over
> the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself.
> After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more
> optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays.
> Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having
> to do a risk assessment.
>
> 4.  We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to
> have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop
> recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view.
> In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote:
>
> Hi Kristina:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts and proposal.
>
> First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with
> their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence.
>
> Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan
> (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about
> your proposal.
>
> I.
>
> This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members.
> Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team
> experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of
> work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and
> creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner.
>
> Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were
> willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in
> the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team
> conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we
> recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that
> an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member
> to communicate with their group.
>
> In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to
> give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also
> provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must
> sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small
> team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to
> consult with her/his team.
>
> I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the
> balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach.
> I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit
> to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to
> make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is
> not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative
> to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the
> conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately
> considering public comment within a time period in line with our
> objectives.
>
> II.
>
> Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is
> disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I
> understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review
> of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes
> to read through the summary prior to the discussion.
>
> The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s
> list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have
> not fully formed their thoughts as of yet.
>
> III.
>
> With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand
> it.
>
> Where you say:
>
> "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change
> their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why.  If the group's
> position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their
> position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that.
>
> Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in
> the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the
> public comment?
>
>    - If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position
>    on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made
>    in the public comment.
>    - If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the
>    comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There
>    are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability
>    to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment.
>
>
> Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse
> (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team):
>
> 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each
> purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is
> going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a
> review-friendly format”
>
> I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd
> recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for
> the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as
> collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden
> the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and
> expect that to be successful.
>
> There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but
> I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket
> requirement for a writing on each issue.
>
> 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue
> discussion, one topic at a time.  List discussion should be highly focused
> and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.”
>
> I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the
> success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would
> not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work
> difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused
> discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With
> meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate
> questions and have a thoughtful discussion.
>
> IV
>
> So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but
> have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful,
> I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the
> world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe
> Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in.
>
> Thanks for reading this,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <
> gnso-epdp-team at icann.org> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is
> a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not
> support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier
> today.
>
> -*-
>
> Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both
> effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small
> team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although
> CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team
> proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies
> also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ]
>
> Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination
> challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals
> who have to represent their group.  EPDP topics are so interrelated that
> it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the
> necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each
> team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team
> as a whole.  Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an
> increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing
> progress and concerns within each group.  Being on the EPDP Team is already
> a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to
> commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of
> 1.
>
> Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach:
>
> 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going
> to be reviewed
>
> 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8
> January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public
> comments themselves.  We appreciate that members have already been asked to
> review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have
> had the time to do so.
>
> 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and
> recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on
> their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like
> to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why.  If
> the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't
> changed their position.
>
> 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each
> purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is
> going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a
> review-friendly format
>
> 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and
> Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it
> discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each
> recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus.
>
> 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue
> discussion, one topic at a time.  List discussion should be highly focused
> and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.
>
> -*-
>
>
> Kristina
>
>
> Kristina Rosette
> Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains
> rosettek at amazon.com | 703.407.1354
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning
> the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the
> rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal.
> <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190114/7797bd16/attachment-0001.html>