[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"

[Greg Shatan]

As drafted, this (still) seems to assume that each "Group" will have a
(single) opinion or position.  This is not unheard, of course, but it is
also not assumed in the PDP process nor in our Charter.  I sympathize with
the difficulty of the Co-Chair's task in trying to identify consensus
positions with broad support,while avoiding results with highly imbalanced
support (or, at its most extreme version, actual "capture").

I'm afraid that this proposal drains the consensus-building and
consensus-calling process of all subtlety and pushes us toward party
politics and voting.

It also dampens the participation of individuals in a group who may have
varying opinions, which would be a shame, since this can be a fruitful
source for generating better ideas.

Even if we recognize that some "Groups" may not have a "position," the
rewards for having a Group position will become too great, since a Group
without position will essentially have no voice.  Of course, it would have
the voices of its individual members, but these voices become muted in this
process.

There may still be merit in the idea of a liaison, but the rest of the
proposal -- the assumptions regarding the roles of the Groups vs the
participants  -- leave me concerned.

Best regards,

Greg

Greg

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:51 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
wrote:

> Sorry, this note got sent too soon by accident.  Please see added
> paragraph at the end in red.
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the great discussion over the past week or so on our
> previous note seeking representatives from each Supporting Organization,
> Advisory Committee, Constituency, Stakeholder Group, etc.  For ease of
> reference I will use the term “Group” so I do not have to list our all of
> those different organizations throughout this e-mail.
>
>
>
> Last week, we had a meeting with the Leadership team of the Subsequent
> Procedures PDP Working Group, including both of our GNSO Council Liaisons.
> The bulk of the call was devoted to this issue and we had a healthy
> exchange on all of the benefits and drawbacks of the initial proposal.
> Here is where I believe we came out:
>
>
>
>    1. The Leadership team would like to continue to request that each
>    Group provide one person and an alternate (if desired) to serve as a
>    “liaison” between that Group and our Working Group.
>    2. The role of the “liaison” will be to serve as an empowered point
>    person that the Working Group could turn to for the following:
>       1. To help explain the Group’s position on comments submitted
>       during the applicable comment period(s);
>       2. To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments
>       submitted;
>       3. To be responsible for seeking the Group’s position on comments
>       from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new
>       proposals, etc.; and
>       4. To be responsible to the Working Group for seeking input from
>       the group on any recommendations that the Working Group may come up with in
>       the future.
>
>
>
> At this point, we are not seeking to have these liaisons to serve in any
> other official capacity including for the purposes of helping Cheryl and I
> determine Consensus.  We are merely using this as a tool to help us
> effectively solicit input from the Groups.
>
>
>
> Please stay tuned for additional information, but if you culd please still
> let us know by *September 26th (the data Public Comments are due)* who
> will serve in these liaison type roles.
>
>
> Thank you for all of your feedback and input on this issues.  We are
> listening to you and we hope this helps clarify our thinking process.
>
>
>
> 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 or 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180904/56a760bd/attachment.html>