[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Thu May 22 18:42:47 UTC 2014 

Hi Kiran,

Please note the following paragraph from this same section: In rare case,
a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the
reasons for this might be:
o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for
the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur.
o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to
arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to
discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant
Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and
Divergence.

I believe in the case of the IGO/INGO PDP, the first reason applied as the
aim was to complete the PDP in an expedited manner.

Best regards,

Marika
 
On 22/05/14 20:27, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:

>Marika,
>
>How would you reconcile this with what happened during the IOC/RCRC
>Working Group when, in order to establish consensus for particularly
>contentious issues, there was a "poll" or "vote"?
>
>K
>
>Kiran Malancharuvil
>Internet Policy Counselor
>MarkMonitor
>415-419-9138 (m) 
>
>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "Marika Konings"
>><marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Kiran, the GNSO WG Guidelines outline the process for the chairs on how
>>to
>> assess the level of support received which specifically does NOT include
>> voting. I've copied the specific language below and as you can see it is
>> intended to be an iterative process. I do want to note that the formal
>> designation of the level of consensus typically takes place at the end
>>of
>> the process when recommendations are in the process of being finalised
>>for
>> inclusion into the Initial Report. In our case it is clear that many of
>> the issues are tied together and the level of support may depend on the
>> outcome on some of the other issues, so it may not be advisable or even
>> possible to take formal consensus calls at this stage.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Marika 
>> 
>> From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6
>> 
>> The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation
>>on
>> recommendations should work as follows:
>> i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to
>> have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs,
>>make
>> an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.
>> ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation,
>> the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated
>> evaluation.
>> iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make
>>an
>> evaluation that is accepted by the group.
>> iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is
>>reasonable.
>> Some of the reasons for this might be:
>> o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow
>>for
>> the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur.
>> o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to
>> arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to
>> discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant
>> Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and
>> Divergence.
>> 
>> Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A
>> liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is
>> Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the
>> meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 22/05/14 18:37, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika
>>> provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to
>>> participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.
>>> 
>>> Kiran 
>>> 
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>> 
>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>> 
>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The
>>>> working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs.
>>>>Anyone
>>>> (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion
>>>> counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and
>>>>toward
>>>> the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful
>>>>job
>>>> of trying to determine what the consensus is.
>>>> 
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is
>>>>> under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C
>>>>> input/feedback.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tim
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exactly our point.  I believe you also made this point a couple
>>>>>>weeks
>>>>>> ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a
>>>>>>lot
>>>>>> of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there
>>>>>> should probably be outreach on this point.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> K
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel"
>>>>>>><jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> J.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group
>>>>>>>>members,
>>>>>>>> we do
>>>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our
>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to
>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> where you fall on the issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> K
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven"
>>>>>>>> <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Could you clarify one point:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C,
>>>>>>>> disagreedŠ.²  Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney at fwdstrategies.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings
>>>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven;
>>>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the
>>>>>>>> template
>>>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l,
>>>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your
>>>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Libby
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings
>>>>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated
>>>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting
>>>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the
>>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1.  Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion
>>>>>>>> for C
>>>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you
>>>>>>>>suggested
>>>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any
>>>>>>>>other
>>>>>>>> proposed edits?
>>>>>>>> 2.  Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you
>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields
>>>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
>>>>>>>> 3.  Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether
>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services
>>>>>>>>contact
>>>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from
>>>>>>>>P/P
>>>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for
>>>>>>>> responses
>>>>>>>> are also encouraged.
>>>>>>>> 4.  Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on
>>>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P
>>>>>>>> registrations and
>>>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
>>>>>>>> To: Marika Konings
>>>>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>,
>>>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call.  Following up on
>>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>>> made on the call ----
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions
>>>>>>>> C(threshold),
>>>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially
>>>>>>>> welcomed!)
>>>>>>>> proposed edits.  Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready
>>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regarding question C.3:  If the following applies to you, please
>>>>>>>> respond
>>>>>>>> on the list:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to
>>>>>>>> commercial
>>>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a
>>>>>>>> difference in
>>>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed
>>>>>>>> for p/p
>>>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)?  If the answer is YES, please
>>>>>>>> specify
>>>>>>>> the differences.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any
>>>>>>>>YES
>>>>>>>> people will step forward on the list.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce
>>>>>>>>s@
>>>>>>>> icann
>>>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>>> Konings
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
>>>>>>>> To: 
>>>>>>>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG
>>>>>>>> Meeting.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1.  Roll Call / SOI
>>>>>>>> 2.  Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question,
>>>>>>>> C1
>>>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don)
>>>>>>>> 3.  Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached)
>>>>>>>> 4.  Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
>>>>>>>> 5.  Next steps / confirm next meeting
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD
>>>>>>>> President
>>>>>>>> FWD Strategies International
>>>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com>
>>>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140522/55ea9bbc/smime.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list