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

Fri Aug 24 20:43:36 UTC 2018

I would have to agree with those who have observed that this is not an appropriate method for determining Consensus under Working Group guidelines.  Those guidelines don’t provide that consensus is measured via designation of an individual representative from each Constituency.  A version of that model was used (with voting attached) in the Accountability CCWG.  I don’t think it should be imported into the PDP process “on the fly” without policy work on the PDP process. If the Co-Chairs believe that measuring Consensus under current WG Guidelines is unwieldy, that is a subject for PDP 3.0.

Corners were already cut relative to measuring “Consensus” in the name of expediency when the Initial Report was issued.   Existing PDP procedures provide for Consensus to be measured among members of the full WG and these should be followed.
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image002.png at 01D43BB0.735218B0]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 11:53 AM
To: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org; Jim Prendergast
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic

Christopher,

We are not saying that all SGs, Cs, ACs, etc have unified positions.  That said, sometimes they do come out with statements that do have unified positions.  When a comment is filed on behalf an SG, C, etc., we do attribute that comment to the entire SG, C, etc. unless it explicitly states in the comment that it is not made on behalf of the SG,C, etc.

Asking for the name of a person who can be empowered to discuss issues on behalf of an SG, C, etc. to be sent to us with a months notice should be enough time.  After all, for the ePDP, I believe all of the representatives were identified within a week or two.  But we do have some additional time since we just extended the comment period.

If we can have the name representative(s) by September 28th (an extra two weeks), this will still be enough time before we start analysis of the comments to have an understanding of who is empowered to speak on behalf of the groups if/when we have questions or need to measure level of consensus.

Thanks.

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: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 2:09 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic

Good evening:  I have also been perplexed, and thinking along very similar lines to Jim Prendergast's post.

I do not need to detail explicitly the diversity, even heterogeneity, of nearly all the SO/ACs, to suggest that the proposal would impose an impossible political burden on their leaderships, for which the SO/ACs  have neither the time, the resources nor the infrastructure to resolve at such short notice.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson
El 24 de agosto de 2018 a las 18:57 Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>> escribió:

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

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180824/070507d0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6501 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180824/070507d0/image002-0001.png>