CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach
All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it's difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday's (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP - Domains rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 ________________________________ [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal.
Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt
On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
All,
On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today.
-*-
Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] <x-msg://20/#_ftn1> [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ]
Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1.
Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach:
1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed
2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so.
3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.
4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format
5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus.
6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.
-*-
Kristina
Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek@amazon.com <mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354
[1] <x-msg://20/#_ftnref1> Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? * If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. * If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1]<x-msg://20/#_ftn1> [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 ________________________________ [1]<x-msg://20/#_ftnref1> Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their *SG/C* or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: *IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies.* Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ *Alex Deacon* Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why:
1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency.
2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are.
3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment.
4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach.
Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hi Kristina:
Thanks for your thoughts and proposal.
First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence.
Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal.
I.
This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner.
Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group.
In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team.
I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives.
II.
Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion.
The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet.
III.
With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it.
Where you say:
"If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that.
Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment?
- If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. - If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment.
Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team):
1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format”
I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful.
There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue.
2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.”
I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion.
IV
So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in.
Thanks for reading this,
Kurt
On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
All,
On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today.
-*-
Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ]
Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1.
Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach:
1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed
2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so.
3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.
4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format
5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus.
6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.
-*-
Kristina
Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek@amazon.com | 703.407.1354
------------------------------ [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing listGnso-epdp-team@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? * If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. * If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 ________________________________ [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Milton – you are confusing 2 concepts—GNSO Council consensus after the Final Report is published to determine if the report will be recommended to the Board for adoption, and the consensus of a GNSO PDP working group. These are different concepts, and can produce different results. There is no way for GNSO Council consensus to be developed right now -- we are looking at developing the consensus positions of the overall composition of the members of the EPDP, which is based on the working group guidelines as cited in the Charter, and as pointed out by Alex. Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> Date: Monday, January 14, 2019 at 8:53 PM To: "alexATcolevalleyconsulting.com" <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? * If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. * If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 ________________________________ [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=>
Sorry Margie, not buying that. I understand the difference between the EPDP consensus and GNSO Council consensus. The EPDP includes ACs and the GNSO doesn’t. But you seem to be saying that in the EPDP team, a single Constituency, which is a subpart of a Stakeholder Group, will count for as much as an entire SG. Tell me by what mathematical or representational trickery a single constituency can have as much weight as an SG. --MM From: Margie Milam [mailto:margiemilam@fb.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:00 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Milton – you are confusing 2 concepts—GNSO Council consensus after the Final Report is published to determine if the report will be recommended to the Board for adoption, and the consensus of a GNSO PDP working group. These are different concepts, and can produce different results. There is no way for GNSO Council consensus to be developed right now -- we are looking at developing the consensus positions of the overall composition of the members of the EPDP, which is based on the working group guidelines as cited in the Charter, and as pointed out by Alex. Margie From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Date: Monday, January 14, 2019 at 8:53 PM To: "alexATcolevalleyconsulting.com" <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? * If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. * If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 ________________________________ [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=wiaJsgfA6BSMYh0I1pcu8ejSaYELQLhmDS9_C_zDkAQ&s=_JSqXpPtKtHx2ei2Z4_n8jcVpMKXFcPhT-9FGHlLxzw&e=>
Milton, if your statement is accurate and only GNSO SGs count, then the ALAC, GAC and SSAC are here with token representation and absolutely no say in the outcome. I request that EPDP Chair clarify if that is his interpretation as well, or if the non-GNSO folks here actually count. Alan At 14/01/2019 08:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon < alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP � Domains< rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Good point, Alan. And along the same lines, do the ACs intend to participate in EPDP consensus, AND submit their advice on this matter directly to the Board? Or do you expect that we will see one or the other, but not both? ������ James Bladel GoDaddy ________________________________ From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:58 To: Mueller, Milton L; Alex Deacon Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Milton, if your statement is accurate and only GNSO SGs count, then the ALAC, GAC and SSAC are here with token representation and absolutely no say in the outcome. I request that EPDP Chair clarify if that is his interpretation as well, or if the non-GNSO folks here actually count. Alan At 14/01/2019 08:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon < alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.” I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format” I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.” I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP � Domains< rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I didn’t say AC’s didn’t count. There is no mention of AC’s in that message at all. We are talking about how consensus is assessed within the GNSO. From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:58 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Alex Deacon <alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> Cc: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] CPH Proposed Alternative to Small Team Approach Milton, if your statement is accurate and only GNSO SGs count, then the ALAC, GAC and SSAC are here with token representation and absolutely no say in the outcome. I request that EPDP Chair clarify if that is his interpretation as well, or if the non-GNSO folks here actually count. Alan At 14/01/2019 08:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG. So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon < alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote: Stephanie, All, Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12): Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency). The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12): For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added] This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level. Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency. To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies. Regards and safe travels. Alex (on behalf of the IPC) ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote: Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why: 1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency. 2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are. 3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment. 4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Kristina: Thanks for your thoughts and proposal. First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence. Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal. I. This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner. Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group. In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team. I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives. II. Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion. The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet. III. With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it. Where you say: "If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.†I wish to be careful how we manage that. Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team): 1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format†I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful. There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue. 2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.†I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion. IV So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in. Thanks for reading this, Kurt On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > wrote: All, On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today. -*- Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments.[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ] Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1. Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach: 1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed 2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so. 3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position. 4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format 5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus. 6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions. -*- Kristina Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains< rosettek@amazon.com<mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354 [1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
To Alan (and all): In the consensus process I laid out (in other email chain) I attempted to clearly indicate that the Advisory Committees’ input would be factored in as part of the Consensus determination. Kurt
On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Milton, if your statement is accurate and only GNSO SGs count, then the ALAC, GAC and SSAC are here with token representation and absolutely no say in the outcome.
I request that EPDP Chair clarify if that is his interpretation as well, or if the non-GNSO folks here actually count.
Alan
At 14/01/2019 08:53 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Alex I’m sorry but this is very misleading. Yes the charter allowed CSG constituencies to be separately represented (because you folks have to maintain your little silos) but as you know both GNSO and ePDP procedures will determine consensus on the basis of SGs not C’s. The structure of the GNSO was carefully designed around SG balance. Just to be clear, there is no way a single constituency can be given the same weight as an entire SG.
So I am sorry that CSG has trouble developing a consensus among its constituencies but that is CSG’s problem, not ours.
Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
On Jan 14, 2019, at 20:28, Alex Deacon < alex@colevalleyconsulting.com <mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>> wrote:
Stephanie, All,
Apologies for responding to this so late, but I wanted to respond to Stephanie's Point 1 before the face to face, and correct some misconceptions about how the EPDP WG Charter treats GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Specifically, the IPC, BC and ISPCP are each separately represented in the EPDP WG. The Charter recognizes that the IPC, BC and ISPCP Members represent their respective constituencies (page 12):
Each Non-Contracted Party House SG, namely the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, may appoint 6 Members + 3 Alternates (for the Commercial Stakeholder Group this is further broken down to 2 Members + 1 Alternate per Constituency).
The fact that the IPC, BC and ISPCP are participating at the "C" (Constituency) level, while others in the GNSO are participating at the "SG" (Stakeholder Group) level is also reflected in the Charter's discussion of consensus (also page 12):
For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, Members are required to represent the formal position of their SG/C or SO/AC, not individual views or positions. [emphasis added]
This reflects reality, which is that the IPC, BC and ISPCP each develop "formal positions" at the Constituency level.
Constituency-based representation is also reflected in the membership chart on pages 12-13 of the Charter, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP representation is set out separately, at the C level, but the RySG, RrSG and NCSG representation is set out at the SG level. This is consistent with other GNSO WGs and the GNSO Council, where the IPC, BC and ISPCP participate as members of their Constituency.
To clearly correct prior statements on this list: IPC, BC and ISPCP representation (in the GNSO Council and in the ePDP Working Group) is based on constituencies, not on the SG. Consensus calls in the ePDP WG are also based on the IPC, BC and ISPCP constituencies.
Regards and safe travels.
Alex (on behalf of the IPC)
___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com <mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:43 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
Hi, we have discussed the matter in NCSG and generally agree with Kristina's alternative proposal. Here are a few of the reasons why:
1. While your latest two small group proposal avoids the representation issue which we raised, we still think that it is important for SGs to reach consensus on the recommendations/questions, and the small group approach does nothing to help with that issue. Representation here is by SG/AC not by constituency.
2. As Kristina has pointed out, the subject matter is inextricably linked...ir it were not, we would have made better progress by now. Atomizing the issues is tempting, but will do nothing to get us out of the challenge of considering questions organically, linked as they are.
3. The schedule is heroic if not naive, and we have wasted much time. Trying to take shortcuts at this point, in our opinion, will not help. I am sure that Kristina is right when she says that people have not read the comments. A group SG approach will help avoid further delays when we debate the outputs of a potential small group process in plenary. I am truly sorry to think that staff went to all this work on the materials over the Christmas holidays....I did no ICANN work over that period myself. After counting my potential Christmases on first one hand then more optimistically two, I decided to take an ICANN holiday over the holidays. Doubtless others smarter than I reached the same conclusion without having to do a risk assessment.
4. We need to think seriously about which questions we are not going to have answered in a consensus fashion by the deadline, and develop recommendations for next steps for the GNSO Council, in my personal view. In the meantime, let's try Kristina' approach.
Stephanie Perrin On 2019-01-07 18:32, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hi Kristina:
Thanks for your thoughts and proposal.
First, I would appreciate it if any other groups on the list came in with their opinions. Obviously, time is of the essence.
Without yet changing the currently published agenda and dual meeting plan (they are still in place), I have some thoughts and also questions about your proposal.
I.
This approach undoubtably places an additional burden on the team members. Your statement of it reflects much of the thinking that the Support Team experienced Friday and through the weekend as we discussed the amount of work to accomplish. The balance is between these additional burdens and creating some opportunity to finish our work in a timely manner.
Therefore, we put this proposal out to see if the different groups were willing to endorse it. We have had some good successes with small teams in the past but also had some attempts not work out because the small team conclusions were re-litigated at the plenary level. In those efforts, we recognized that each group must be represented in the small teams and that an opportunity for coordination must be provided for the small team member to communicate with their group.
In addition, the memo outlining the approach calls for the requirement to give the small team conclusions a significant amount of deference and also provided for an inter-meeting consultation on issues if necessary. We must sign up to these conditions if the effort is to work. Certainly, no small team member would be forced to endorsing a conclusion if s/he desired to consult with her/his team.
I agree with your assessment of additional difficulty and that is the balancing that must occur as we decide whether to commit to this approach. I.e., in order for this effort to succeed, the various groups must commit to approach this with a determination to shoulder the burden and also to make sound judgments when additional coordination is needed (and when it is not). For me, given the time available to us, I thought it was imperative to suggest or to try something to expand our capacity. I came to the conclusion that trebling our capacity provided a chance of appropriately considering public comment within a time period in line with our objectives.
II.
Your assessment that the Team has not yet read the comment is disappointing (given the staff holiday work that went into it), however, I understand it. In partial mitigation of that, the agenda calls for a review of the rationale to introduce each subject and give the Team a few minutes to read through the summary prior to the discussion.
The agenda seeks to march through the first few topics on each team’s list. The Support Team has prepared new summaries to help those who have not fully formed their thoughts as of yet.
III.
With regard to your proposal, I have questions so that I fully understand it.
Where you say:
"If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.†I wish to be careful how we manage that.
Does that mean, a group would like to change their position as stated in the Initial Report or does it mean change their position as stated in the public comment? If the former, that is appropriate, a group can change its position on an agreed upon conclusion in the Initial report based on arguments made in the public comment. If the latter, I think that is inappropriate. The comments are the comments and should be taken as written, i.e., stand on their own. There are commenters that are not seated at our table and do not have the ability to change, elaborate on, or explain their comment. Also, there are two parts to your proposal I don’t believe I can endorse (i.e., where I think it inappropriate to further burden the team):
1) "Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly formatâ€
I do not see each group providing a separate writing on 20-some-odd recommendations plus several open questions for each meeting in time for the other groups to read and consider it. Given that the comments, as collected and summarized by staff, have not been read yet. I can’t burden the different groups with so many additional readings and writings and expect that to be successful.
There will likely be some issues where a written analysis is required but I believe we should take those as they arise and not create a blanket requirement for a writing on each issue.
2) "In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.â€
I agree with having an email discussion on issues but I would not base the success of our plan on it. That is, I think it is a good idea but I would not delay any other effort in reliance that we will be able to work difficult issues out via email. We have not yet been able to have a focused discussion on email. I lay this at the feet of the meeting cadence. With meetings twice a week there is not time for team members to formulate questions and have a thoughtful discussion.
IV
So, if you have gotten this far, I’d be happy to discuss this further but have left the agenda in place for now. If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to have a conversation. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world is no longer at their desks today but we could chat in an Adobe Connect room and anyone wanting to could listen in.
Thanks for reading this,
Kurt
On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> > wrote:
All,
On behalf of the CPH members and alternates, attached and copied below is a CPH-proposed alternative to the small team approach. The CPH does not support the small team approach, and discussed it at a meeting earlier today.
-*-
Whilst we appreciate the challenge of finding an approach that is both effective and works for all members, the CPH does not support the 3 small team proposal as the best way to review public comments. <>[1] [FN1: Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. ]
Dividing the EPDP Team into 3 Small teams creates huge coordination challenges for each group and puts a significant burden on the individuals who have to represent their group. EPDP topics are so interrelated that it’s difficult to discuss in the vacuum of small teams and given the necessary need to ensure all differing interests are represented in each team, there is likely to be same lack of consensus that exists in the team as a whole. Furthermore, dividing up group members will necessitate an increase in the amount of time that will have to be spent discussing progress and concerns within each group. Being on the EPDP Team is already a huge time commitment for its members, and presumably few can afford to commit even more time to be able to keep up to date on 3 teams, instead of 1.
Therefore the CPH would like to propose the following alternate approach:
1) Staff confirm the order in which each purpose/recommendation is going to be reviewed
2) Instead of meeting as a team (or small teams) allow this Tuesday’s (8 January 2019) call time to be used by each group to go through the public comments themselves. We appreciate that members have already been asked to review all public comments, but in practise, it is unlikely that most have had the time to do so.
3) Each group should review the public comments for each purpose and recommendation (in the order specified by staff as per 1) and agree on their position. If, after reviewing the public comments, a group would like to change their position, they need to provide a rationale as to why. If the group's position is unchanged, they should identify why they haven't changed their position.
4) Each group should provide their position and rationale for each purpose/recommendation in writing, in advance of the meeting where it is going to be discussed, so that Staff can present it to the whole group in a review-friendly format
5) The EPDP Team continues to meet as a whole team on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but instead of discussing the individual public comments, it discusses the position of each group on the public comments of each recommendation/purpose, where there is no consensus.
6) In between meetings, the list should be utilised to continue discussion, one topic at a time. List discussion should be highly focused and structured, for example providing a response to specific questions.
-*-
Kristina
Kristina Rosette Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains< rosettek@amazon.com <mailto:rosettek@amazon.com> | 703.407.1354
<>[1] Although CPH representatives discussed at their meeting this morning the 3-team proposal that had been put forward over the weekend, the rationale applies also to the more recent 2-team proposal. <CPH Proposal for EPDP public comment review approach.docx>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
_______________________________________________
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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alex Deacon -
James M. Bladel -
Kurt Pritz -
Margie Milam -
Mueller, Milton L -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stephanie Perrin