[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 2019

Tue Mar 19 22:43:17 UTC 2019

I agree that public comment is not the measure of Consensus under WG Guidelines.  However, neither is the strict counting of the "majority".  As Jeff has pointed out many times, Consensus is measured qualitatively, not quantitatively.  The Guidelines (pasted below) are NOT a matter of getting "hung up on terminology used in the triage".  Our goal is Consensus Call in about three months, so we had better have a good understanding as to how these recommendations are currently being characterized in relation to consensus  - since Leadership has the ultimate responsibility of designating the level of Consensus (or Consensus against), which is then put out to the full WG for feedback as to whether the WG members agree with the Consensus level designations pursuant to 3.6 of the WG Guidelines.   In fact, that is the very purpose for which we are reviewing these summaries, in preparation for the formal determination of Consensus.

In the example of our "test case" from the third F2F in Kobe re "autofill", we can move the ball forward by gauging how the WG can get to Full Consensus rather than repeatedly arguing the position that the divergent comments made "don't make sense".  (For example, the way to get to Full Consensus might be to carve out the questions related to mission and purpose when it comes to "autofill".  Again, this is not a "new idea" to be delayed to some later policy-making effort. )  Other WG members, including Leadership, may have other "third alternatives' to get to Full Consensus, which is where we want to be if at all possible.

In this regard, it is inappropriate to site to Work Track determinations ("without any dissent") when in fact WG Members were told (when agreeing to an Initial Report with no Consensus Call)  that the Work Track recommendations, which did not include full WG participation, would not have any conclusive effect on Consensus determinations.  (There would be way too much "bootstrapping" going on if this were the method of proceeding.)

The present full WG deliberations are the relevant deliberations for determining Consensus pursuant to GNSO Working Group Guidelines.  The goal in the WG deliberations should be to get to Full Consensus wherever possible.  (That means compromise.)  Guidelines are pasted below for reference.  The levels are:  Full Consensus, Unanimous Consensus, Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and Divergence (No Consensus).  At this point, it seems pretty clear that each recommendation is going to require a Consensus Designation.  And it is definitely not too soon to have a preliminary discussion about those designations.

[cid:image001.png at 01D4DE65.5D456880]

[cid:image002.png at 01D4DE67.115EF2E0]

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:43 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 2019

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________

As Chair, for the record, this concept was supported by the Work Track that made this recommendation without any dissent prior to the Initial Report.  As far as the comments we got back, ICANN agreed with the recommendation, but expressed concern as to the complexity of implementing this. The only comment that disagreed was from the BC.  Neustar, Lemarit, Fairwinds and the BRG supported the recommendation.

I would like to highlight this point from Jeff but generalize it: I noticed some remarks in the list and in our meetings mentioning that recommendation X got Y comments against ; the point is that those recommendations have either no or little dissent to be put out as general agreements, while the ones with some dissent were made as questions in the initial report. So saying that a majority/all commenters were against makes for a bit of dissent, not for a majority, since that point already had significant support in the respective WTs.

And while we did have some agreeing comments, people are more likely to express themselves in disagreement... so it's not surprising that the overall trend of comments would be against. If those dissents convince the WG to change those recommendations it will be exactly because the WG has then moved its position, not because the share of the comments.

Rubens

________________________________

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/20190319/31ca285f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 93680 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190319/31ca285f/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 162119 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190319/31ca285f/image002-0001.png>