[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic

[Jim Prendergast]

Cheryl and Jeff - Thanks for sending the note.  Since this is the first PDP for many, including me, I have a few questions about this approach.

Has this concept of designating representatives for SO/AC/SG/Cs been done in previous PDPs?

I looked at the charter for this PDP and did not see any reference to it so I presumed that I was always participating in my own capacity and not behalf of any SO/AC/SG/Cs.  Now it seems like a new class of PDP participant is being created. One that holds more sway than everyone else who has been participating for the last two years or so.  Is that the intent?  It would seem to me if this was the process that was going to be used, it should have been called out in the charter.  It certainly would have influenced how SO/AC/SG/Cs looked at this PDP from the start.

How do you envision these new "empowered" participants to effectively represent SO/AC/SG/C positions in such a fluid environment?  It's not difficult to imagine a lot of "I need to consult my SO/AC/SG/C" responses to questions and that process, depending on the SO/AC/SG/C, could take weeks.

I'm still trying to get my head around measuring consensus qualitatively and not quantitively - what is the methodology?  It may have been discussed on a previous call so if that's the case, could you or Steve circulate the link to the recordings so I and others can review this?  I know were pretty far off from this process kicking in but it's important for all PDP participants have a solid grasp of the methodology being used before we get there.

Thanks


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:28 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic

All,

On the full Working Group call, one of the items we discussed was the difficult task that Cheryl and I, as Overall Working Group Co-Chairs, will have in ultimately determining the level of "Consensus" on each recommendation and for the overall final report (which I know is a number of months away).

In preparation for our group evaluating the public comments to the Initial Report next month, we would like to request that by September 14th, each Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Advisory Committee, etc. designate one person (and an alternate) that is empowered to speak for that particular Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Advisory Committee, etc.    This is not in any way an attempt to discourage individuals from participating, giving their opinions, helping to analyze comments, drafting, etc., but rather just an attempt for Cheryl and I to understand that when a position is being taken by someone, it is as an individual contributor, an organization or on behalf of a Stakeholder Group, Constituency, Advisory Committee, etc.

As we have repeatedly stated, Consensus is measured qualitatively and not quantitively.   Therefore, understanding the context in which position statements are made would be very helpful in moving forward.  Once we receive all of this information, we will then include that in the list of members of the Working Group.

Thanks in advance.

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
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180824/f991717e/attachment.html>