Jeff, I would have to leave it up to IPC Leadership, after discussion within the IPC, as to whether they agree with this interpretation of the WG Guidelines. It’s unquestionably a new one as far as I know – more reflective of steps taken in CCWG – Accountability , but in that case, the “representation” was explicit. I think the notion that the GAC is going to appoint one rep to the Sub Pro group is pretty extreme. Not sure as to ALAC or SSAC. Are you looking for appointments that mirror what occurred in CCWG- Accountability? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D43DF5.73C88530] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:35 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast Cc: Drazek, Keith; Austin, Donna Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic All, We will discuss this further on the call today, but to be clear, we are asking for a spokesperson/alternate from each Constituency or Stakeholder Group (In the case of the GNSO), Supporting Organization (in the case of the ccNSO), and Advisory Committee (in the case of the GAC, ALAC, SSAC). If an Advisory Committee wants to further break down into regional organization that is fine as well. Cheryl and I are looking to understand that when positions are taken on issues, recommendations, comments, etc., are those positions held by just the individuals taking those positions, or are they the positions of a Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, etc. The Working Group Guidelines can be found here<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...>. Based on Cheryl and I’s read of the Guidelines, it is our job as Co-Chairs to assess the level of Consensus of the Working Group (Section 3.6) . Although it talks about the taking of Polls (and how care should be taken if doing those), there is little or no guidance on how the Co-Chairs make those calls and certainly nothing prohibiting us as Co-Chairs from trying to assess whether positions being taken are by a particular Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, etc. Section 2.2.1 of the Working Group Guidelines (as well as 3.2) also require the Chair (in our case Co-Chairs) to ensure that the Working Group is representative and in fact, Section 3.2 states “Ideally, a Working Group should mirror the diversity and representativeness of the community by having representatives from most, if not all, CO Stakeholder Groups and/or Constituencies.” [Emphasis Added] Anne - Cheryl and I disagree with your view that merely asking for representatives from each group to help us ensure that we are capturing the views of each group in any way run contrary to the Working Group Guidelines. In fact, we believe quite the opposite. Not only will it help us comply with 2.2.1 and 3.2 of the Guidelines, but it will also help us to understand the context in which certain statements or positions are taken. In a month or so when we start reviewing the comments from the Initial Report, we are likely to have questions on the comments that are submitted. They may be clarification questions, or substantive questions. Some of the comments are likely to come from the IPC, CBUC, ISPCP, CSG, RySG, RrSG, ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, SSAC, NCUC, NCSG, etc. Having a person that we can all turn to as a representative of that group to direct these questions will help us tremendously. If they don’t know an answer, we can look to them to get the answer from the represented group as an action item. This is not “cutting corners” at all and makes good logical sense. Of course, you are free to continue to disagree with this approach, but this is how we would like to move forward. I look forward to discussing further in a few hours on our call. I have cc’d our GNSO Council Liaisons on this email. Although Cheryl and I have weekly meetings with them and we have kept them in the loop, they should weigh in if they disagree. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President | Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 5:16 PM To: 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Christopher, Jeff is not asking for one GNSO designee. However, as a reminder, the PDP is a GNSO process. (My reference to “Constituencies” was merely shorthand.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D43DF5.73797AD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:57 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jim Prendergast; Jeff Neuman Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Well, Jeff speaks of SO/ACs; Anne speaks of Constituencies! But - as proposed - GNSO would have one empowered somebody, who BTW could not be IPC, who are by far the more divisive of all the PDP participants. Good night CW El 24 de agosto de 2018 a las 22:43 "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escribió: I would have to agree with those who have observed that this is not an appropriate method for determining Consensus under Working Group guidelines. Those guidelines don’t provide that consensus is measured via designation of an individual representative from each Constituency. A version of that model was used (with voting attached) in the Accountability CCWG. I don’t think it should be imported into the PDP process “on the fly” without policy work on the PDP process. If the Co-Chairs believe that measuring Consensus under current WG Guidelines is unwieldy, that is a subject for PDP 3.0. Corners were already cut relative to measuring “Consensus” in the name of expediency when the Initial Report was issued. Existing PDP procedures provide for Consensus to be measured among members of the full WG and these should be followed. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D43DF5.73797AD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 11:53 AM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; Jim Prendergast Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Christopher, We are not saying that all SGs, Cs, ACs, etc have unified positions. That said, sometimes they do come out with statements that do have unified positions. When a comment is filed on behalf an SG, C, etc., we do attribute that comment to the entire SG, C, etc. unless it explicitly states in the comment that it is not made on behalf of the SG,C, etc. Asking for the name of a person who can be empowered to discuss issues on behalf of an SG, C, etc. to be sent to us with a months notice should be enough time. After all, for the ePDP, I believe all of the representatives were identified within a week or two. But we do have some additional time since we just extended the comment period. If we can have the name representative(s) by September 28th (an extra two weeks), this will still be enough time before we start analysis of the comments to have an understanding of who is empowered to speak on behalf of the groups if/when we have questions or need to measure level of consensus. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President | Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 2:09 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Good evening: I have also been perplexed, and thinking along very similar lines to Jim Prendergast's post. I do not need to detail explicitly the diversity, even heterogeneity, of nearly all the SO/ACs, to suggest that the proposal would impose an impossible political burden on their leaderships, for which the SO/ACs have neither the time, the resources nor the infrastructure to resolve at such short notice. Regards Christopher Wilkinson El 24 de agosto de 2018 a las 18:57 Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> escribió: Cheryl and Jeff – Thanks for sending the note. Since this is the first PDP for many, including me, I have a few questions about this approach. Has this concept of designating representatives for SO/AC/SG/Cs been done in previous PDPs? I looked at the charter for this PDP and did not see any reference to it so I presumed that I was always participating in my own capacity and not behalf of any SO/AC/SG/Cs. Now it seems like a new class of PDP participant is being created. One that holds more sway than everyone else who has been participating for the last two years or so. Is that the intent? It would seem to me if this was the process that was going to be used, it should have been called out in the charter. It certainly would have influenced how SO/AC/SG/Cs looked at this PDP from the start. How do you envision these new “empowered” participants to effectively represent SO/AC/SG/C positions in such a fluid environment? It’s not difficult to imagine a lot of “I need to consult my SO/AC/SG/C” responses to questions and that process, depending on the SO/AC/SG/C, could take weeks. I’m still trying to get my head around measuring consensus qualitatively and not quantitively – what is the methodology? It may have been discussed on a previous call so if that’s the case, could you or Steve circulate the link to the recordings so I and others can review this? I know were pretty far off from this process kicking in but it’s important for all PDP participants have a solid grasp of the methodology being used before we get there. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:28 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic All, On the full Working Group call, one of the items we discussed was the difficult task that Cheryl and I, as Overall Working Group Co-Chairs, will have in ultimately determining the level of “Consensus” on each recommendation and for the overall final report (which I know is a number of months away). In preparation for our group evaluating the public comments to the Initial Report next month, we would like to request that by September 14th, each Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Advisory Committee, etc. designate one person (and an alternate) that is empowered to speak for that particular Constituency, Stakeholder Group, Advisory Committee, etc. This is not in any way an attempt to discourage individuals from participating, giving their opinions, helping to analyze comments, drafting, etc., but rather just an attempt for Cheryl and I to understand that when a position is being taken by someone, it is as an individual contributor, an organization or on behalf of a Stakeholder Group, Constituency, Advisory Committee, etc. As we have repeatedly stated, Consensus is measured qualitatively and not quantitively. Therefore, understanding the context in which position statements are made would be very helpful in moving forward. Once we receive all of this information, we will then include that in the list of members of the Working Group. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
