To be clear, I was not taking the position we must refuse membership to anyone not in the original group.  I was however taking the position that this raised some procedural questions, both generally and in this particular set of facts, that should be recognized

Generally -- I don't know if we have ever had a "reconvened" or "reformed" GNSO Working Group pursuant to Section 16 before.  The process of reconvening the group (beyond contacting the original group) is ad hoc, and whatever we do here sets a precedent.  Decisions will need to be made about how to populate the group based on who actually returns to the group and who is added to the group, the composition and balance of the group could be significantly different.  It will be up to the Chair, and ultimately the GNSO Council, to determine whether the composition is appropriate, based on GNSO Procedures and Working Group Guidelines.  Having given one group the opportunity to supplement the original Working Group, other Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies and other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Groups should be given the same opportunity -- both to replace members who may have moved on and to add new members who are not replacing anybody.  This does not require an open call for volunteers.  All it requires is an email to the SO/AC/SG/C/RALO chairs advising them of this opportunity.  That would be sufficiently transparent and fair.

In this particular set of facts -- it is not common for a Working Group to be convened (or reconvened) solely to deal with issues that affect a single stakeholder (or that stakeholder and its affiliates).  As a matter of fact, I can't think of any time that this happened, though I am not as experienced as some.  But that is what we have here.  It might strike some as peculiar for that stakeholder's very first act in the (re)convening of that group to be a request to add several new members sympathetic to its positions.  The addition of several new members to a relatively small group can have a significant impact on the group's outcome.  I'm not suggesting any ulterior motives and I accept Jorge's explanation.  Nonetheless, it would be good to dispel even the merest appearance of seeking to modify the composition of the group to achieve a more favorable outcome.  Again, this can be accomplished by the email to the various chairs.  While this request may be innocent in this instance, it is not difficult to imagine a future situation where a group attempted to "pack" a reconvened group, seeking to take advantage of the fact that there won't be an open call for new members.

Consistent with the above, my request of staff is simple -- to send an email to the various chairs advising them that their groups should consider replacing members that are not showing up and also can add additional members to this group as well.  That will get us started on the right foot.

Greg

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Novoa, Osvaldo <onovoa@antel.com.uy> wrote:

+1.  That is what we, the original members, have to do also.  The report was quite extensive and comprehensive.

Best regards,

Osvaldo

 

 

De: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Chuck Gomes Consulting
Enviado el: lunes, 12 de junio de 2017 09:40 p.m.
Para: 'Greg Shatan'; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
Asunto: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Fw: Proposed agenda for the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names

 

I don’t think we could legitimately refuse new members because of the ongoing openness of WGs but I still believe that new members have a responsibility to review and try to get up to speed on the work that was already done.  At a minimum they need to review the final report and from there they should go back and review things that they need more clarity on.

 

Chuck

 

From: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 9:05 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Fw: Proposed agenda for the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names

 

I thought that Stephane's request raised an interesting procedural question/quandary, and I was a little surprised to see it granted without discussion.

 

The PDP Manual is rather sparse, stating only that the first step in the amendment/modification process is that: "The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or modifications;"

 

I had thought of this as "getting the band back together again," i.e., bringing together the team that had participated in the original PDP process so they could be consulted based on their experience and expertise gained through the deliberations of the Working Group.  As such I had the idea that the reconvened WG was limited to the pre-existing members of the WG.

 

Of course, Working Groups are generally open to new participants at any time, unless stated otherwise, and subject to certain limitations (i.e., later joiners must read the existing documents, etc. of the group and may not re-open decided points absent compelling new evidence).  It was just not clear to me that this general rule applied to a reconvened working group, given my understanding of why the "old" group is reconstituted rather than just forming a new group.

 

If the general rule applies, and the group is open to new members, doesn't it then make sense to put out a general call for new members?  We should allow all stakeholders the same opportunity, rather than  having new membership be "by invitation only."

 

To me, the current situation is a somewhat uncomfortable midway point between bringing the old gang together and essentially convening a new group under the name of the old one.

 

It would be unfortunate to start our work with a procedural irregularity, particularly where the invitation for selected new members to participate has come from the party that is inarguably most interested in the outcome of this process.  This could set an unfortunate precedent for future work under Section 16.

 

I look forward to the thoughts of others.  Apologies that I cannot be on Wednesday's call to raise the issue.

 

Best regards,

 

Greg

 

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Stephane Hankins <shankins@icrc.org> wrote:

Dear Mary,

Many thanks for the agenda of the first call of the reconvened PDP Working Group, just received.

On Jorge Cancio's suggestion, could you kindly consider to add the names and e-mails of Thomas Schneider, Jorge Cancio and Mark Carvell to the distributions' list and invitations for the reconvened PDP Working Group meeting calls. It is important that the voice of member States of the GAC be also, and as far as possible, represented.

Could you also kindly add Charlotte's name and e-mail as well (Charlotte Lindsey: clindsey@icrc.org).

With thanks and kind regards,

Stéphane


Stéphane J. Hankins
Legal adviser
Cooperation and coordination within the Movement
International Committee of the Red Cross
Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19

----- Forwarded by Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC on 12.06.2017 12:11 -----

From:        Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>
To:        "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
Date:        12.06.2017 12:00
Subject:        [Gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed agenda for the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names
Sent by:        gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org




Dear all,
 
Please find below the proposed agenda for this first call of our reconvened PDP Working Group, which agenda has been approved by Thomas Rickert, our chair:
 
1.        Roll call/reminder to updates Statements of Interest
2.        Overview of the GNSO policy amendment process (i.e. steps, possible outcomes, role of the Council and the Board vis-à-vis the WG etc.) (led by GNSO Council Chairs)
3.        Review and discussion of the scope of the GNSO Council request (led by GNSO Council Chairs/Thomas Rickert)
4.        Recap of why and what brought us here (i.e. overview of the Copenhagen facilitated discussions highlighting the post-PDP developments (GAC advice) and the limited nature of the list of Red Cross names) (led by GNSO Council Chairs/Thomas Rickert)
5.        Recap and review of the original policy recommendations (led by Thomas Rickert)
6.        Discussion of a possible timeline for the WG and reporting back to the GNSO Council (led by Thomas Rickert)
7.        Next steps/next meeting

 
For this first meeting, you may find the following links helpful:

 
Thanks and cheers
Mary
 
 
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 01:52
To: "christopher.lamb17@gmail.com" <christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
Subject: Scheduling the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names
 
Dear all,
 
Thank you to everyone who has responded, and for those who have not, we will be grateful if you can let us know whether you will be available to participate in the consultation with the GNSO Council concerning a proposed amendment to the policy recommendation developed by this Working Group in relation to Red Cross National Society and international movement names.
 
Following consultations with Thomas Rickert, the Chair of this Working Group, and the GNSO Council leadership, staff will be scheduling the first call on this topic for Wednesday 14 June at 1800 UTC. Please look out for a calendar invitation and call-in details shortly.
 
For those who are intending to participate in this reconvened Working Group but who cannot make that first call, please note that the call will be recorded and transcribed, as is the case for all GNSO Working Group discussions and meetings.
 
Thanks and cheers
Mary
 
From: "christopher.lamb17@gmail.com" <christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:20
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] PLEASE READ: Reconvening this Working Group - a message from GNSO Council Chairs
 
Dear Mary,
 
Thanks very much for this.  I’m not sure that I will have a lot to contribute beyond my support for the consensus, but I’m happy to be part of the action!
 
All the best
 
Chris
 
Christopher Lamb
43/27 Flinders Lane
Melbourne 3000
+61 423 099 121 (mobile and WhatsApp)
+61 3 9942 6679 (fixed)
Skype: clamb17
 
From: Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 20:03
To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] PLEASE READ: Reconvening this Working Group - a message from GNSO Council Chairs
 
Dear members of the 2012-2013 Working Group on IGO-INGO Protections in All gTLDs,
   
On behalf of the current GNSO Council Chairs, I write to ask that you read the attached letter from them, relating to a reconvening of our Working Group for the purpose of consultation about a possible modification of our initial policy recommendation concerning certain Red Cross National Society and international movement names.
   
As requested in the letter, the GNSO Council will greatly appreciate your reply to this email list, indicating if you will be available to participate in that consultation, by Friday 9 June 2017.
   
    Thanks and cheers
    Mary
   
   
    Mary Wong
    Senior Policy Director & Special Adviser for Strategic Policy Planning
    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
    Email: mary.wong@icann.org
    Telephone: +1-603-5744889
   
   
    On 11/21/13, 15:48, "owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org on behalf of Thomas Rickert" <owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org on behalf of rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
   
        All,
        as you will have noted, the GNSO Council has unanimously adopted the consensus recommendations made by our WG.
       
        The collaborative spirit, the timeliness of our work, the time spent by all of you and the fact that we came to consensus on many points despite the diverse views represented in the WG was very much applauded by Council members, Board members and individuals that spoke up.
       
        It is my pleasure to pass on this commendation to all of you and I would like to personally thank all of you again as well as Berry, Mary and Marika from ICANN staff for their outstanding work.
       
        I hope that this e-mail list will continue to exist until such time when we know whether the Board will accept the recommendations and when it comes to implementing an IRT (Implementation Review Team).
       
        All the best,
        Thomas
       
   
   


_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
 

[avast.com]

Virus-free. www.avast.com[avast.com]


 _______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo

The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org

This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender.


_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo

 



El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.