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

[Jeff Neuman]

Thanks Jim for the great questions.  To my knowledge this has not been done before and we are trying this out as we have tried out a number of other things in the past.

Cheryl and I have the task of trying to determine the level of consensus on each of the recommendations.  A task as I am sure you can appreciate has garnered a lot more attention lately and one that has been challenged in at least one Working Group recently.

The point of this exercise is not at all to discourage different proposals, viewpoints, affirmations, etc.  The purpose is to help Cheryl and I understand whether positions that are taken are that of an individual, company or whether they are the position of the Stakeholder Group, Constituency, Advisory Committee, etc.  As you note below, we are trying to figure out ways to measure consensus in a qualitative manner as opposed to quantitative.  The example I user is if you have 100 people in a Working Group where 90 of them are RySG members, and you have 1 or 2 members from other Cs, ACs or SGs, then just because the 90 RySG members believe in a specific position and outnumber all other positions on at least a 9:1 ration, that does not mean that there is by any means Consensus, Rough Consensus, etc.

Your question on this new "empowered representative" is a great one.  A person asked me yesterday about our expectations for that role and here was my response to her (I have eliminated her name and the name of the group).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear XXXX,

I think you would make a great spokesperson for the _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] and I am confident you could do the job well.

The job would not be much different than what you are already doing.  The only different aspect is that we (the SubPro leadership) would assume that anytime you make a contribution (email, oral, etc), that unless you said otherwise, it would be the official _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] position.  It would be your job if this were not the case to make sure that you preface any non-official _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC]  statement with something like, the _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC]  has no official position, or I am speaking now on behalf of [COMPANY NAME], or on behalf of yourself...whatever the case may be.

It would also mean that if we needed someone to give us more context or information on a _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC]  position (which could likely happen when the WG is reviewing the comments),the SubPro leadership could address those questions to you.

****************************************************************************

I hope this helps.

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

From: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:58 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: Follow up on Consensus Topic

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180824/344dd4f8/attachment.html>