Last chance, last dance
Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned” from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.” I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice” I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt
Kurt, If one group does not support it is not FULL CONSENSUS but why is it not CONSENSUS? Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. [Note: For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of �Consensus� with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term �Consensus� as this may have legal implications.] Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it Alan At 18/02/2019 05:29 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned” from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.” I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice” I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt
What we have shoud be qualified as „consensus“ as described in Alan’s note. Let me suggest we use the term „rough consenus“, though, to avoid confusion with the definition of consensus as used in the GAC. Thomas ... rickert.law gdpr.ninja
Am 19.02.2019 um 07:00 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
Kurt,
If one group does not support it is not FULL CONSENSUS but why is it not CONSENSUS?
Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.
Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. [Note: For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of ‘Consensus’ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term ‘Consensus’ as this may have legal implications.]
Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it
Alan
At 18/02/2019 05:29 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hello Everyone:
Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned†from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.â€
I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency.
We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.)
The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support.
The approach for suggested edits will be:
1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below.
2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written.
3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion.
The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice†I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing.
There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary:
Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions
For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted.
4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written.
Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation.
Talk to you all soon,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I agree with Alan’s and Thomas’s comments on consensus designations. Agree with Thomas that “consensus” in the GNSO terminology can be confusing so we might shift to “rough consensus” for clarity. In that respect, I would suggest that we clearly have rough consensus on Purpose 2, regardless of what IPC/BC proposes. From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:11 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Last chance, last dance What we have shoud be qualified as „consensus“ as described in Alan’s note. Let me suggest we use the term „rough consenus“, though, to avoid confusion with the definition of consensus as used in the GAC. Thomas ... rickert.law gdpr.ninja Am 19.02.2019 um 07:00 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>: Kurt, If one group does not support it is not FULL CONSENSUS but why is it not CONSENSUS? Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. [Note: For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of ‘Consensus’ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term ‘Consensus’ as this may have legal implications.] Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it Alan At 18/02/2019 05:29 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned†from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.†I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice†I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Every group in ICANN has a different defintion of "Consensus". My recollection is that the ccNSO means unanimity. ALAC means 80%. For a group that holds Charters as sacred, i would think we need to stick with the definition there. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 19, 2019 6:11:02 AM EST, Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> wrote: What we have shoud be qualified as „consensus“ as described in Alan’s note. Let me suggest we use the term „rough consenus“, though, to avoid confusion with the definition of consensus as used in the GAC. Thomas ... rickert.law gdpr.ninja Am 19.02.2019 um 07:00 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>: Kurt, If one group does not support it is not FULL CONSENSUS but why is it not CONSENSUS? Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. [Note: For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of ‘Consensus’ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term ‘Consensus’ as this may have legal implications.] Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it Alan At 18/02/2019 05:29 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned†from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.†I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice†I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Kurt, thanks to you and staff for your classification and summary of the comments. In terms of clarifying and finalizing where we all stand I think the “quiet period” was a success. I would like the correct a few things for the record and voice a disagreement about one of your consensus designations. · Purpose 2 has Consensus. The only opposition to it in its current form is 2 constituencies within the Commercial SG. · On Recommendation 2, you classified it as Strong Support/ Significant Opposition. However, 3 entire SGs are against it. In similar constellations (e.g., Recommendation 16 and 17) you have said there is a lack of convergence on this issue. · Recommendation 16: If your current classification of Rec 2 holds, we will have to classify this as “Strong Support/Significant Opposition” to be consistent, as there are 3 entire SGs that support it, and one constituency within CSG On other matters, you characterized Amr as supporting a study on the geographic differentiation issue. This is not quite correct. My understanding is that Amr called for legal advice on the question, not a study. NCSG does not support a study as we view it as a delaying tactic by advocates of geographic differentiation. Similarly, Stephanie has never said that any and all research is a “good thing.” Look forward to talking more this morning Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:30 PM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Last chance, last dance Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned” from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.” I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice” I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt
Yes particularly on the geographic differentiation....I don't see any need for research. ICANN needs to have a uniform policy, right? We cannot be talking about uniform access and yet not be talking about uniform protection. Determining which countries have similar legislation, particularly if the only element ICANN wishes to focus on is the chance of successful litigation resulting in fines, strikes the NCSG as not being in keeping with our commitment to human rights and adherance to law. The economic costs of determining the risk on a rolling basis are also a very strong factor mitigating in favour of not making the geographic determination. Stephanie On 2019-02-19 08:24, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Kurt, thanks to you and staff for your classification and summary of the comments. In terms of clarifying and finalizing where we all stand I think the “quiet period” was a success. I would like the correct a few things for the record and voice a disagreement about one of your consensus designations. · Purpose 2 has Consensus. The only opposition to it in its current form is 2 constituencies within the Commercial SG. · On Recommendation 2, you classified it as Strong Support/ Significant Opposition. However, 3 entire SGs are against it. In similar constellations (e.g., Recommendation 16 and 17) you have said there is a lack of convergence on this issue. · Recommendation 16: If your current classification of Rec 2 holds, we will have to classify this as “Strong Support/Significant Opposition” to be consistent, as there are 3 entire SGs that support it, and one constituency within CSG On other matters, you characterized Amr as supporting a study on the geographic differentiation issue. This is not quite correct. My understanding is that Amr called for legal advice on the question, not a study. NCSG does not support a study as we view it as a delaying tactic by advocates of geographic differentiation. Similarly, Stephanie has never said that any and all research is a “good thing.” Look forward to talking more this morning Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:30 PM To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Last chance, last dance Hello Everyone: Well, if I ever share my “lessons learned” from this experience, the first one will be, “don’t have a quiet period for final report review.” I think that, by-and-large, the statements and reviews were constructive and measured. In certain cases (more than one), we strayed from our objectives to maintain the agreed-upon language in the report, absent some mistake or inconsistency. We have essentially two days of meeting time before we must deliver the report. Here is my approach to the next two days - you are free to provide feedback on these. This approach was developed with the idea that I don’t wish to require your attendance at two days of marathon meetings. (By my reckoning, we are ~4300 person-hours of meeting time into this, and two days at the end can only slightly perturb the results of those extensive consultations and deliberations.) The attached document has divided the recommendations into three groups: (a) those for which there is no commentary in the statements, (b) those for which there are comments but do not suggest edits to the recommendation or report, and (c) those that recommend edits. In the cases of the first two groups, there will be no discussion. The comments made in set (b) will be included in the report, either in the group statement or in the report body. Subject to the points below, they will be designated as enjoying full consensus / consensus support. The approach for suggested edits will be: 1) We will keep to the central idea that we will not discuss substantial changes to each of the recommendations. Edits substantially changing the intent of the recommendation will either not be discussed or lightly mentioned. Groups recommending substantial changes from previously agreed upon language can signal dissent if they cannot accept the language as written and the consensus designation will take note of that. There are a couple exceptions to this that I will discuss below. 2) For edits to recommendations or supporting text that might be termed clarifications or corrections, we will have a brief explanation of those to see if there is (more or less) universal approval of those. If that level of approval is not apparent, we will revert to the previous language and the group recommending the edit can decide whether they still can support the recommendation as written. 3) There are two areas where I believe we should continue our substantive discussion. The first is Reasonable Access or Lawful Disclosure where the recommendation has oscillated between two versions and we were unable to get to an agree-upon conclusion because of who could attend what meeting and, essentially, time ran out. I’d like Ashley to start this discussion. The second issue is the Geographic considerations issue. As some others did, I too remember a discussion and, I thought, agreement, that we would request that additional research be done on this topic. I remember Amr’s intervention that the research be undertaken in two phases so that it is properly scoped and done economically. While the discussion of this research is in the body of the report (as “implementation advice” I guess), we should discuss whether to move it into the recommendation itself. As Stephanie has said more than once, research is a good thing. There are other issues raised during the quiet period that provided corrections or clarifications to recommendations or supporting text that should be discussed in plenary: Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars / Tech contact Recommendation 9 - Contractual Compliance Recommendation 11 - City field Recommendation 12 - Organization field Recommendation 17 - Natural v Legal distinctions For the remainder of the issues in the attached, we will allow a 48-hour review period and then consider them closed unless there is a comment to the contrary. The agenda remains open for discussion and items can be added or deleted. 4) There are a number of recommendations that still enjoy the consensus support of the group. Our report will include the extent of support for each recommendation. To the representatives of the IPC and BC, it is apparent to me that not all of your recommendations will be adopted. Assuming that eventuality and based on your joint statement, I think you will have to decide for each of these recommendations that have the full support of the group whether you continue to support them or wish to state that you cannot support them as written. Also assuming that all of the IP / BC edits will not be adopted, but reading all of the other stakeholder group comments in support of the report, I will plan to designate the Final Report as having Strong Support but not Consensus. The team should look for solutions / compromise solutions to avoid such a designation. Talk to you all soon, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Kurt Pritz -
Mueller, Milton L -
Stephanie Perrin -
Thomas Rickert