[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 18:39:15 UTC 2020

Dear Ann,
I agree with you
Moreover, Jeff indicated

*"Finally, the ICANN Board will have to make a decision on each and every
one of these items regardless of whether there was consensus or not.  For
example, take the Recommendation that states all applications should be
done in rounds.  Assume there is Strong Support (but not Consensus).  The
Board will still have to decide whether applications should be done in
rounds.  Shouldn’t the Board know that there was Strong Support for this
Recommendation when it considers this question?  Shouldn’t it know that
there was Strong Support within the Working Group for the “Recommendation”
(even if not Consensus)?+"*

It may give the impression  as you indicated that there would be little
point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations


On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>

> I’m a little confused.  As far as I know, a Recommendation has consensus
> under the WG Guidelines if it has either
> (a) Full Consensus
> (b) Consensus, or
> (c) Strong Support.
> What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be made if
> it does not have Full Consensus?  If that were the case, there would be
> little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for
> Recommendations that only achieve “Consensus” or “Strong Support”.  I would
> expect to see many “Consensus” designations and “Strong support”
> designations by Leadership for various Recommendations.
> Anne
> *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 12:12 AM
> *To:* alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
> ------------------------------
> +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>
> [image: Greenberg Traurig]
> *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
> 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.
> ------------------------------
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fa4c1413/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17689 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201223/fa4c1413/image001-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list