[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations

Wed Dec 23 12:10:40 UTC 2020

Dear All,
I also echo what Alan and other stated.
In fact I have already included the same conditions in reply to the
consensus call.
Regards
Kavouss

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:39 PM Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg <
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> I rarely post to the list but have been following it carefully.  Alan is
> completely correct.  Straying from WG consensus policy recommendations in
> the final report has dangerous downstream consequences where, through
> policy implementation into an application system, it becomes very tricky to
> navigate.  The stakes are high and the capacity to make a mess is there for
> the asking without being crystal clear about consensus-based
> recommendations.
>
> Complete clarity about recommendations heads off many potential missteps
> and confusion that we have seen in the past with damaging impacts for
> ICANN, the stakeholder community and future applicants in any new TLD round.
>
> Liz
>
> ….
> Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance
> M: +44 7714 356150‬ :: +61 436 020 595
> W: www.lizwilliams.net
> S:  lizwilliams1963
>
> Important Notice
> This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject
> to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake,
> please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2020, at 11:32, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> wrote:
>
> I could not agree more with Alan and Marc if I tried.  Something is not a
> WG Recommendation if it isn’t a consensus based recommendation from the
> WG.  Mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this
> community over the past couple of years (to the point where I have heard
> true multistakeholderists™ ask why they even bother).  I hope this WG
> doesn’t get this wrong as well.
>
>
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
> attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
> recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
> received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
> e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:12 AM
> *To:* alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
>
> *This message originated external to the firm. Please use caution when
> opening any attachments or links within this email. Contact the IT Helpdesk
> with any questions.*
> ------------------------------
> +1
>
> *Marc H. Trachtenberg *
> Shareholder
> Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice
> Greenberg Traurig, LLP
> 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
> T +1 312.456.1020
> M +1 773.677.3305
> trac at gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com  |  View GT
> Biography  <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>
>
> <image001.png>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Alan Greenberg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM
> *To:* New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
>
>
> **EXTERNAL TO GT**
>
> I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for
> those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording.
>
> Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus
> on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but
> that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report.
>
> For recommendation that achieve a *Full Consensus* or *Consensus* (as
> defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a
> "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still
> labelled as a "Recommendation".
>
> Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus.
> Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG
> consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on
> to the Board.
>
> That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified
> recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with
> Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus").
>
> There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations,
> nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us
> that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent
> stance going forward.
>
> We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have
> WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if
> there is really agreement or not.
>
> If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We
> still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of
> opinion.
>
> *But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the
> GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles.*I
> think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific
> recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus.
> Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the
> final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is
> similarly no consensus on the recommendation?
>
> Alan
> ------------------------------
> If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged
> information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at
> postmaster at gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> 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...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201223/5719686c/attachment-0001.html>