[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls
langdonorr at gmail.com
Fri Dec 11 19:45:06 UTC 2020
Yes Jorge, be assured we do understand...
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 05:27 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Cheryl and Jeff
> I guess you‘ll understand that this is not satisfactory - at least to me.
> GAC consultations without a stable text are just not feasible - it is just
> not possible to consult GAC Members, who in turn need to consult within
> their Governments, based on unstable and provisional texts. I feel the
> different character of Government representation should be better
> considered, especially after all the efforts we have made to deliver timely
> GAC inputs during prior steps.
> And starting December 18th a vast amount of people will be on leave...
> hence the days between December 19 and January 4 are basically of no use.
> (hence the availability of a stable text on December 17 is logically of
> very limited help)
> Hence, it is really unfortunate to stick to such key consultation over a
> well-known holiday period.
> Von: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>
> Datum: 11. Dezember 2020 um 18:49:12 MEZ
> An: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>, Cancio Jorge
> BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Betreff: Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary
> Information on Consensus Calls
> Jorge, please see interspaced below responses from Jeff and me...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 01:11, Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg <
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
> Dear Jeff and all
> Thanks very much for this email!
> Thank you also for your thoughtful reply
> Speaking personally, I’m afraid that the proposed timeline with consensus
> calls over the holiday break (at least in the Northern hemisphere) is not
> very helpful.
> We recognise this is an impost and a challenge, and regret that not
> everyone will find it at all convenient, but we are needing to complete our
> finalisation of the work in a manner that allows us to meet the January
> GNSO Council Meeting document deadline. Considering that we have been
> flagging the "End of Calendar Year" endpoint for the delivery of our Final
> Report to the Council for a lengthy period of time we had hoped that these
> dates and the minor *extension in timing* we propose would not be seen as
> too problematic, we trust that everyone will appreciate we added time into
> the End Dec point to allow for the activities to be completed recognising
> that a few days at least for some, would be being carved out for their
> social and familial purposes at this time of year. We note this timing is
> regrettable but in our view unavoidable.
> At least for those of us needing to do extensive consultations (be it
> inside a Government or within a larger community) such dates are completely
> We note that the consensus call had been planned for an earlier date from
> Dec 17 on, leaving 7 days the finalisation of other steps before the 23rd
> and then the close of the ICANN Offices, the planning we have now produced
> allows a longer time (14 days) with yes all be it some public holidays in
> some places... As WG Members and their associated communities had been
> working towards the earlier date and less time between these final steps,
> and noting we have ensured the regular updating and sending of redlined
> text as we go to reduce the burden of looking for changes in a Final Report
> we hope that the extent of such consultations would be being already
> managed, and we note that some parts of the ICANN COmmunity have certainly
> done so... The Government Advisory Committee of course (along with the
> other ACs) also have the post Report to GNSO opportunity to create any
> Advice on the Report that it sees fit and that works within the constraints
> of their consultative mechanisms. We do hope however that they will also
> through any Members of the WG also contribute to the Consensus Call.
> Not sure how others feel about this…
> Personally, I would suggest starting the consensus calls once we are back
> from the break, e.g. on January 4th.
> That would at the least push Report lodgement to the GNSO to at least
> February and that would require us to petition the GNSO Council for
> permission to do so. That is not a timeline we have either endorsed or
> worked towards since our last petition for an extension of the timeline to
> the end of the Calendar year earlier in 2020.
> In addition, I feel that for the same reasons (need for consultations
> etc.) the time allotted between consensus designations by the co-chairs and
> the deadline for submitting minority reports should be significantly
> extended (e.g. at least to one full week).
> We trust that as we have encouraged for some time now consideration, if
> not the preparation of Minority Reports has been at least kicked off by WG
> Members, noting that with the freeze of text on the 17th December everyone
> will have all that goes into the final report with the exception of the
> specific detailing of the degree(s) of consensus associated with the
> recommendations designated by the Co-Chairs after the Consensus Call
> formally completes. So we would encourage you and others to make full use
> of that time from the 17th onward if such Minority Report drafting has not
> already begun.
> Hope this is doable…
> Kind regards
> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:
> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman
> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Dezember 2020 06:08
> An: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information
> on Consensus Calls
> The Leadership Team met a few hours ago to discuss a number of issues
> including how to get to the finish line……We are nearly there!
> As discussed on the last call (about 24 hours ago), we are making the
> following changes to the Work Plan:
> * 11 December 2020
> * Latest Redline of Final Report containing changes from all topics
> discussed to date as well as changes (if any) as a result of the 9 Topical
> * Meeting of the small team on Auctions to see if there can be any
> recommendations to the Full Working Group
> * 14 December 2020
> * Discussing (a) Auctions Topic (results if any from small team;
> (b) Conflicts of Interest, (c) Applicant Freedom of Expression, and (d)
> Dispute Resolution Procedures after Delegation.
> * 15 December 2020
> * Comments due to 11 December 2020 Redline
> * Release of Any redlines to as a result of the topics discussed on
> 14 December 2020
> * 17 December 2020
> * Comments due to December 15 Redline
> * Working Group Call (already on your calendars) to close out any
> last issues
> * Content Freeze / Lockdown – Other than if there are any changes
> to close out last issues, all content is locked down for the Consensus Call
> * 22 December 2020
> * Final Report is released to the Working Group
> * Commencement of Consensus Call (See some notes below)
> * 5 January 2020
> * Consensus Call Ends
> * 6 January 2020
> * Designation of Levels of Support by Working Group Leadership Team
> * 7 January 2020
> * Call of the Working Group to discuss designations, answer
> questions, and hopefully celebrate a job well done
> * 8 January 2020
> * Challenges to Designation of Levels of Support by Working Group
> Leadership Team are due (if any)
> * Minority Reports (if any) are due
> * 11 January 2020
> * Final Report delivered to the Council
> * Document Deadline for discussion during January’s GNSO Council
> Some Notes
> 1. A longer note will follow in the next couple of days on how we will
> structure the Consensus Call. We strongly recommend that if you were not
> on the last working group call on 10 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC, please do
> go back and review at least the first 15-20 minutes of the call. (Link to
> 1. Although more details will be provided later:
> * Leadership will be grouping the Topics into batches for purposes
> of the Consensus Calls. We will not be voting on each recommendation /
> implementation guidance separately (as there are several hundred of them).
> * We will do our best to only include in the batches the lesser
> controversial topics; stated differently, Leadership has a sense of which
> sections should be supported by either full consensus or (rough)
> consensus. Of course we could always be wrong, but we will do our best.
> i. If
> there is a batch that contains a part that you do not support, then in the
> Consensus Call, we will ask you specifically which element or elements do
> you not support. In other words, if we grouped topics 1,2 and 3 together
> and you indicate that you do not support the batch, you will be asked to
> specify which of the Topics you do not support, and which element(s) within
> that topic you do not support. We will assume that the topics / elements
> you do not list are ones that you would support. So being specific will be
> * Topics where we can already foresee that there will be a
> difference of opinion (eg., Closed Generics, Mechanisms of Last Resort), we
> will make sure we have those topics in the Consensus Call on their own
> (i.e., not in batches with other topics).
> * All expressions of support / non support during the Consensus
> Call MUST be submitted through the formal mailing list. We will not be
> counting any responses to the Consensus Call that are not submitted on the
> list. It is critical that all of the information is on the record and
> * The Consensus Call is NOT A VOTE – Leadership will not be
> determining levels of support based on the quantity of responses, but will
> take into consideration other factors such as the groups with whom an
> individual associates, etc.
> * We will be following Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines (
> 1. Minority Reports are due just 2 days after the designation of Levels
> of Consensus. We know that is not a lot of time. However, given that we
> have had a draft final report, comments to the draft final report,
> extensive discussions of those comments of the draft final report, and you
> have seen several redlines already, we believe that if you disagree with
> the way the group is heading, you should pretty much know that now. There
> is no reason to wait until the designations of levels of support to start
> drafting. In fact, I am told that the ALAC has already been working on a
> minority report to certain topics for some time now. Bottom Line – you can
> start working on any minority report now. The worst thing that will happen
> is that you draft your report and there is a consensus call surprise where
> you find out you may not be in the minority and you decide not to submit
> the statement 😊
> 1. We are nearly there!!!!!!!!!
> Your humble Leadership Team,
> Cheryl and Jeff – Co-Chairs
> With very special thanks to Martin, Annabeth, Robin and Flip who have been
> participating in Leadership calls for many months and providing valuable
> insight & of course to Steve, Emily and Julie, without whom, none of this
> would be possible
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg