[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Alan,
My concern here would be that there are some issues that arose from 2012 that the WG tried to address that may not have Consensus per se but that do have Strong Support.   Two examples might be improvements in CPE evaluation championed by the ALAC and transparency requirements in relation to the Auctions process.  There are, in particular, certain interests that may strongly oppose such improvements and may strongly prefer to have a “fallback” to 2012 implementation.  Thus, I think the idea of eliminating improvements to the program that fall under the “Strong Support” designation (as not constituting Recommendations of the WG) is quite dangerous.

Anne

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:59 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; langdonorr at gmail.com; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
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<mailto: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<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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
trac at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>  | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>

[Greenberg Traurig]

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.

________________________________

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/20201223/34a9f680/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17689 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201223/34a9f680/image001-0001.png>