[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations

[Alan Greenberg]

In the past, the GNSO Council had not ratified 
recommendations with "Strong Support", but I 
suppose that could be a matter of debate.

Alan

At 2020-12-23 01:29 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>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
>
>[EXTERNAL]
>
>----------
>+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
><mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>trac at gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com 
> |  
><https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>View 
>GT Biography
>
>Greenberg Traurig
>
>
>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg 
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM
>To: New gTLD SubPro 
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>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 
><mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com>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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201223/5e884c9f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 326a671.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17689 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201223/5e884c9f/326a671-0001.png>