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

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Wed Sep 5 19:28:59 UTC 2018


Jeff,

A few comments:


1.       I think the WG Guidelines would REQUIRE an Alternate in addition to a “Point of Contact” since participation by a “group” in a PDP appears to be governed by the following section of the WG Guidelines:

[cid:image002.png at 01D43ED0.5236CDB0]

2.       There are numerous references to “the group” with a small “g” in the WG guidelines, including a reference as to how Consensus should be measured in the “group.”  Thus, referring to the point of contact as a liaison for a “group” will be confusing.   What about using “GNSO Stakeholder and AC Points of Contact”?  (All of the GNSO groups are referred to generally as Stakeholders on ICANN’s website  -  https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies.)



3.       I think it is clear from the last call that several members of the WG have objected to the notion that these POCs should be used by the Chairs to obtain a “qualitative measure of Consensus”.  I don’t think your email addresses this concern.  It simply says that if a group does not take a position, that is okay and does not mention that where groups do take a position, the Chairs could still potentially take this as a “qualitative measure” of Consensus.   (I personally believe this varies the PDP process, has huge implications for the Bottom-Up Multi-Stakeholder Policy-Making Model going forward as a possible precedent, and  would have to be specifically addressed in the WG Charter in accordance with WG Guidelines in order to be adopted.)  But whatever Leadership elects to do in this regard should be clearly communicated to each of the GNSO Stakeholders and ACs when a formal request is sent out from the Co-Chairs asking them to (1) become members of the WG and to (2) designate a POC and an Alternate.

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office


520.879.4725 fax

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

_____________________________

[cid:image003.png at 01D44514.049CBBB0]

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: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 11:17 AM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"

Greg,

I appreciate the comments, though I notice that you made some assumptions which were are not accurate or certainly unintended.

But let me revise the proposal to make things more clear (See Below).  If I could ask a favor with your next set of comments.  If you think the proposal can be made better, please suggest changes that may make things more palatable to you.

Bottom line Greg is that we  know that “Groups” are preparing to submit comments.  Having liaisons to help this Working Group understand  A Group’s position (or positions or for that matter a non-position) will be helpful to the Working Group.

We have noted your objection and hope that the text below makes sense.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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:
 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.

1.       The role of the “liaison” will be to serve as an empowered point person that the Working Group could turn to for the following:

a.       To help explain the Group’s position(s) on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s)(if any);

b.      To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted;

c.       To be responsible for seeking the Group’s position(s)(If any) on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; and

d.      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.
 For the avoidance of doubt, we recognize that Groups may not have a unified position (or any position for that matter) on any particular item or items.  In situations where there is more than one position, the liaison will be expected to garner comments on each of the positions for which comments are sought on behalf of the Group.  We also recognize that a Group may have no position on a particular issue, in which case, the liaison will be expected to let the Working Group know that that is the case.
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.




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: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:13 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"

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<mailto: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:

a.    To help explain the Group’s position on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s);

b.   To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted;

c.    To be responsible for seeking the Group’s position on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; and

d.   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<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/20180905/2f0034e8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 63082 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180905/2f0034e8/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6496 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180905/2f0034e8/image003-0001.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list