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

Wed Mar 20 19:32:18 UTC 2019

Anne,

Thanks for using a different color as it helps me see your comments.  I will respond therefore in Blue below.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President

Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA

M: +1.202.549.5079
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/>

Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:47 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 2019

Thanks Jeff.  The Board's comments/ questions about our process are nevertheless relevant.  I appreciate the fact that Leadership will be discussing the process further and would like to add some thoughts for your consideration in that discussion.

[Jeff] By commenting only on your questions about consensus, I was not making any kind of statement that the Board comments/questions are irrelevant.  Of course they are.  And we do appreciate your comments and thoughts.

The WG needs clarification of a couple of things not covered by the Guidelines language I pasted below.   These are process issues in our WG right now and the items may in fact be related.

1. Classification of comments/suggestions as "New Ideas" - there is nothing in the WG Guidelines about this as far as I know?
a. How do we tell the difference between a "new idea" and a simple  "lack of consensus"?
b. Could a "new idea" be the subject of a consensus developed during the current process of reviewing staff summaries?  If so, will WG members know it at the time of the discussion - in order to avoid objections to the characterization by Leadership that will come later in the process?
c. How will a "new idea" (one that is clearly not a comment demonstrating a lack of consensus on a recommendation)  be treated?  Will the WG be compiling a list for future policy work?  In other words, where is Leadership headed with classification of "new ideas" and will this also require the WG consensus on where to take them moving forward?

[Jeff]  The term "New Idea" was only a way to classify the comments that came in.  They term is not intended to be anything other than that.  It is a label, not a judgement or anything else.  The label is not relevant to the determination of consensus.  The key is whether an idea has merit and is supported by a Consensus of the Working Group.  This is true whether it is a new idea, old idea, or any other label used for an idea.  Whether ideas have Consensus is ultimately a judgement call.  But if there is an idea brought up (or has already been brought up) and there are only a few people that are seemingly in support of the idea, or there are lots of people/groups against that idea, that will give us a clue as to whether that idea should be explored further or not.

2. Is Leadership committed to working to Full Consensus or Consensus in the WG?  I would have to say that I understand this to be the role of Leadership in a PDP - to facilitate compromise and reach full Consensus or Consensus if possible.  Otherwise, we'll end up with a ton of disagreement about the designations for each recommendation and a ton of Minority Statements.  We need to follow the facilitator model of leading WGs.   (Several comments in the Internet Governance session in Kobe posited the view that the entire ICANN organizational behavior (not staff)  has descended into "tribalism".

[Jeff]  Of course we are committed to working towards Consensus in the Working Group.  To be brief, the problem is bigger than tribalism.  Participants of Working Groups need to WANT to compromise and come to consensus.  They need both the incentive to compromise as well as the authority to compromise.  This may mean coming off of ones position or out of their silo to work in good faith to understand other views and work constructively to come up with a solution.  As leaders, we cannot force this upon the Working Group members.  I hope this Working Group is able to work towards that.

Thus, in order to proceed in an even more productive manner, the full WG should be advised on the following:

1. Clarification as to how "new ideas" are going to be handled by Leadership (and hopefully with WG agreement on the approach)  AND
2. Commitment from Leadership to facilitate a process whereby WG members can compromise and reach full consensus if possible.  (I think this is actually in the role of the definition of the role of  Co-Chairs in the WG guidelines  - but you would know since you and Marika wrote the revised PDP Manual.)

[Jeff]  Wow, you are one of the few that remembers the writing of the revisions to the manual.  Thanks!  Again, as Co-Chairs, we are working to try and present potential compromises in areas where we can.  But it really has to be the Working Group that works with us to not get caught up on labels used on slides, or terms that we may use accidentally or unintentionally.  Lets focus on concepts.  Lets focus on the problems we are trying to solve.

I'm sure we all appreciate how difficult it is to plough through this work.  I appreciate your Leadership and Cheryl's, as well as your time commitment, and am hopeful that these comments may be viewed as constructive considerations for our final results in the long run.

Anne

From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:07 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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]
________________________________
Thanks Anne for the comments.   We will discuss further on the call on Monday.  I do agree that Consensus Calls are from the full Working Group deliberations and not the Work Tracks.  But the discussions of the Work Track along with the public comments are all relevant for discussion points and for assisting with Consensus Determinations.  We don't just throw all of that out and start over.

With respect to guidelines as to how Cheryl and I will determine consensus, we will give this some more thought, but for anyone that thinks that we are going to come up with a solid formula or objective test, I don't want to set expectations.  It is a qualitative analysis and the only guidelines we have are those cited below by Anne.  If Cheryl or I were to add any requirements, then that would get criticized for being inconsistent with the guidelines.  At the end of the day, this is a subjective call by Cheryl and I which we will review with the group and for which the Working Group has the ability to question.  We are going to do our best, but at the end of the day, we are humans and by our very nature are not infallible.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President

Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA

M: +1.202.549.5079
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/>

Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 6:43 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 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 01D4DF30.0CC13580]

[cid:image002.png at 01D4DF30.0CC13580]

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<mailto: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.

________________________________

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/20190320/29e247b5/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/20190320/29e247b5/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/20190320/29e247b5/image002-0001.png>