Anne,

 

The request several years ago for official representatives was met with a lot of controversy and was eventually dropped.  It was initially intended to ensure that the Working Group was hearing all of the positions from all of the ICANN stakeholder, which did happen.  That should not be confused with the ultimate results of a consensus call.

 

In the case of Closed Generics, assuming there is Divergence (and I am not assuming that), but if there is, then I believe our rationale section already documents all of the views that have been expressed.  That is already in the body of the Report.  But if a working group member wants to submit an additional statement that they want appended to the report on Closed Generics, then they are free to do so.

 

Sorry Anne, I am just not sure what there is a disagreement about here.  What am I missing?

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

 

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 12:28 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

Thanks Jeff.

So, for example, in the Consensus designation on Closed Generics, Leadership would simply say “No Consensus” or “Divergence”, would not state any Minority Views and will require additional individual “minority reports” of individual WG members rather than including the Minority Views discussed to date in our deliberations?

 

I note that the WG guidelines state that in the case of Divergence, Minority Views should be “encouraged”.  To me, that means that Leadership should encourage Minority Views to be expressed and to allow time for WG members to develop support for those.  That support would be developed among WG members (and not necessarily in their constituency) and that takes time.  (The GAC has asked for a week.)

 

A couple of years ago you asked for constituencies to designate representatives and you said that Leadership would need to take into account the views of representatives as possibly more weighty than individual views.  Now you are saying constituencies can’t file Minority Views because they have other channels for providing advice?  Please clarify.

Anne

 

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:12 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

[EXTERNAL]

Anne,

 

This is not what we are saying.  There is a difference between a Minority Viewpoint and a Minority Report.

 

  1. When Cheryl and I indicate level of support, if there is full consensus, then there obviously would be no minority view.
  2. If we determine that there is Consensus, then according to the definition, we will have found that “only a small minority disagrees…”  We do not need a Minority Report or documentation of the Minority Viewpoint to determine that a small minority of members disagree.
  3. If we determine that there is Strong Support but significant opposition, again we will have determined that there is a larger, but still minority group of members, that disagree.

 

Once we set forth the levels of support designations, then (and only then) will the Working Group Leadership accept documented “Minority View”.  As stated in 3.6, “Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s).”  And by “proponent(s)”, that means Working Group Member(s), not by ACs, SGs or Cs.

 

We expect that all those responding to a Consensus Call will do so on their own behalf and not necessarily on behalf of the Cs, SGc, or ACs.  The Cs, SGs and ACs have not been involved in all of the discussions and have not been part of the compromises which needed to be made.  In many ways, requiring input from your Cs, SGs and ACs, could have the negative affect of undoing our many years’ worth of work.  Now of course we cannot tell you how to respond to the Consensus Call.  But we can urge you to respond as a Working Group member.


I  hope this helps.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

 

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:32 AM
To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

Jeff and Cheryl,

It sounds as though you are saying there will be no Minority Viewpoints expressed from our deliberations when you publish the Consensus call.  Is that the case?

 

Then if that is the case, are you saying that only Leadership will determine when a Minority Viewpoint exists after receiving something you call a “minority report”?

 

How does the process you described on the call allow for the drafter of a proposed Minority Viewpoint to develop support – given that a Minority Viewpoint is not supposed to be an individual viewpoint but is rather supported by “a small number of people”?

From the WG Guidelines:

•MinorityView-refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation.This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or,it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals. In cases of Consensus,  Strong support but significant opposition, and NoConsensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).

 

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 2:15 PM
To: 'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch' <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; 'jeff@jjnsolutions.com' <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

After listening to the Dec 10 call (which I could not attend), I have to say that normally a Minority Statement will require coordination with others to determine how many will join in the Minority Statement.  It is pretty much impossible to do that in 2 days.  You said on the call that WG members should know what the consensus designation will be but you also said that Leadership doesn’t know and that Leadership will have to take into account a number of different factors, not just the number of WG members who support a particular consensus designation.   Then you said we could be surprised to find that Leadership did not find a consensus and so we might not need to file a Minority Statement.  This is all very “loosey-goosey” so in fact, it’s not possible for WG members to draft and develop support for Minority Statements at this time except on issues that are major like Closed Generics, Auctions, etc.      

 

It’s important, in drafting a Minority Statement, to know whether Leadership will designate the section as Full Consensus, Rough Consensus, or Strong Support.  A WG member can’t draft a proper Minority Statement without knowing what the designation is and reviewing notes/calls to say whether or not s(he) agrees with that designation.  And there is no way to develop support for that draft Minority Statement in our constituencies or otherwise within 2 days.

Thank you,

Anne

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 8:37 AM
To: 'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch' <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; jeff@jjnsolutions.com
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

+1.  Regarding the following, this is not at all a reasonable expectation:

 

Minority Reports are due just 2 days after the designation of Levels of Consensus. 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 7:11 AM
To: jeff@jjnsolutions.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Jeff and all

 

Thanks very much for this email!

 

Speaking personally, I’m afraid that the proposed timeline with consensus calls over the holiday break (at least in the Northern hemisphere) is not very helpful.

 

At least for those of us needing to do extensive consultations (be it inside a Government or within a larger community) such dates are completely unworkable.

 

Not sure how others feel about this…

 

Personally, I would suggest starting the consensus calls once we are back from the break, e.g. on January 4th.

 

In addition, I feel that for the same reasons (need for consultations etc.) the time allotted between consensus designations by the co-chairs and the deadline for submitting minority reports should be significantly extended (e.g. at least to one full week).

 

Hope this is doable…

 

Kind regards

 

Jorge

 

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Dezember 2020 06:08
An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Work Plan Changes and Preliminary Information on Consensus Calls

 

All,

 

The Leadership Team met a few hours ago to discuss a number of issues including how to get to the finish line……We are nearly there!

 

As discussed on the last call (about 24 hours ago), we are making the following changes to the Work Plan:

 

 

Some Notes

  1. A longer note will follow in the next couple of days on how we will structure the Consensus Call.  We strongly recommend that if you were not on the last working group call on 10 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC, please do go back and review at least the first 15-20 minutes of the call. (Link to Call)

 

  1. Although more details will be provided later:
    1. Leadership will be grouping the Topics into batches for purposes of the Consensus Calls.  We will not be voting on each recommendation / implementation guidance separately (as there are several hundred of them).
    2. We will do our best to only include in the batches the lesser controversial topics; stated differently, Leadership has a sense of which sections should be supported by either full consensus or (rough) consensus.  Of course we could always be wrong, but we will do our best.

                                                         i.      If there is a batch that contains a part that you do not support, then in the Consensus Call, we will ask you specifically which element or elements do you not support.    In other words, if we grouped topics 1,2 and 3 together and you indicate that you do not support the batch, you will be asked to specify which of the Topics you do not support, and which element(s) within that topic you do not support.  We will assume that the topics / elements you do not list are ones that you would support.  So being specific will be important.

    1. Topics where we can already foresee that there will be a difference of opinion (eg., Closed Generics, Mechanisms of Last Resort), we will make sure we have those topics in the Consensus Call on their own (i.e., not in batches with other topics).
    2. All expressions of support / non support during the Consensus Call MUST be submitted through the formal mailing list.  We will not be counting any responses to the Consensus Call that are not submitted on the list.  It is critical that all of the information is on the record and documented.
    3. The Consensus Call is NOT A VOTE – Leadership will not be determining levels of support based on the quantity of responses, but will take into consideration other factors such as the groups with whom an individual associates, etc.
    4. We will be following Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf).

 

  1. Minority Reports are due just 2 days after the designation of Levels of Consensus.  We know that is not a lot of time.  However, given that we have had a draft final report, comments to the draft final report, extensive discussions of those comments of the draft final report, and you have seen several redlines already, we believe that if you disagree with the way the group is heading, you should pretty much know that now.  There is no reason to wait until the designations of levels of support to start drafting.  In fact, I am told that the ALAC has already been working on a minority report to certain topics for some time now.  Bottom Line – you can start working on any minority report now.  The worst thing that will happen is that you draft your report and there is a consensus call surprise where you find out you may not be in the minority and you decide not to submit the statement 😊

 

  1. We are nearly there!!!!!!!!!

 

Thanks.

 

Your humble Leadership Team,

 

Cheryl and Jeff – Co-Chairs

             

With very special thanks to Martin, Annabeth, Robin and Flip who have been participating in Leadership calls for many months and providing valuable insight & of course to Steve, Emily and Julie, without whom, none of this would be possible

 

 

 

 

 


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

 


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.