Jeff,

 

A few comments:

 

1.       I think the WG Guidelines would REQUIRE an Alternate in addition to a “Point of Contact” since participation by a “group” in a PDP appears to be governed by the following section of the WG Guidelines:

2.       There are numerous references to “the group” with a small “g” in the WG guidelines, including a reference as to how Consensus should be measured in the “group.”  Thus, referring to the point of contact as a liaison for a “group” will be confusing.   What about using “GNSO Stakeholder and AC Points of Contact”?  (All of the GNSO groups are referred to generally as Stakeholders on ICANN’s website  -  https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies.)

 

3.       I think it is clear from the last call that several members of the WG have objected to the notion that these POCs should be used by the Chairs to obtain a “qualitative measure of Consensus”.  I don’t think your email addresses this concern.  It simply says that if a group does not take a position, that is okay and does not mention that where groups do take a position, the Chairs could still potentially take this as a “qualitative measure” of Consensus.   (I personally believe this varies the PDP process, has huge implications for the Bottom-Up Multi-Stakeholder Policy-Making Model going forward as a possible precedent, and  would have to be specifically addressed in the WG Charter in accordance with WG Guidelines in order to be adopted.)  But whatever Leadership elects to do in this regard should be clearly communicated to each of the GNSO Stakeholders and ACs when a formal request is sent out from the Co-Chairs asking them to (1) become members of the WG and to (2) designate a POC and an Alternate. 

 

 

 

Greg,

 

I appreciate the comments, though I notice that you made some assumptions which were are not accurate or certainly unintended.

 

But let me revise the proposal to make things more clear (See Below).  If I could ask a favor with your next set of comments.  If you think the proposal can be made better, please suggest changes that may make things more palatable to you.

 

Bottom line Greg is that we  know that “Groups” are preparing to submit comments.  Having liaisons to help this Working Group understand  A Group’s position (or positions or for that matter a non-position) will be helpful to the Working Group.

 

We have noted your objection and hope that the text below makes sense. 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you for the great discussion over the past week or so on our previous note seeking representatives from each Supporting Organization, Advisory Committee, Constituency, Stakeholder Group, etc.  For ease of reference I will use the term “Group” so I do not have to list our all of those different organizations throughout this e-mail.

 Last week, we had a meeting with the Leadership team of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, including both of our GNSO Council Liaisons.  The bulk of the call was devoted to this issue and we had a healthy exchange on all of the benefits and drawbacks of the initial proposal.  Here is where I believe we came out:

 The Leadership team would like to continue to request that each Group provide one person and an alternate (if desired) to serve as a “liaison” between that Group and our Working Group.

1.       The role of the “liaison” will be to serve as an empowered point person that the Working Group could turn to for the following:

a.       To help explain the Group’s position(s) on comments submitted during the applicable comment period(s)(if any);

b.      To respond to questions from the Working Group on the comments submitted;

c.       To be responsible for seeking the Group’s position(s)(If any) on comments from other Groups or individuals when requested, new recommendations/new proposals, etc.; and

d.      To be responsible to the Working Group for seeking input from the group on any recommendations that the Working Group may come up with in the future.

 At this point, we are not seeking to have these liaisons to serve in any other official capacity including for the purposes of helping Cheryl and I determine Consensus.  We are merely using this as a tool to help us effectively solicit input from the Groups.

 For the avoidance of doubt, we recognize that Groups may not have a unified position (or any position for that matter) on any particular item or items.  In situations where there is more than one position, the liaison will be expected to garner comments on each of the positions for which comments are sought on behalf of the Group.  We also recognize that a Group may have no position on a particular issue, in which case, the liaison will be expected to let the Working Group know that that is the case.

Please stay tuned for additional information, but if you culd please still let us know by September 26^th (the data Public Comments are due) who will serve in these liaison type roles.

 

 

 

 

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 or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

 

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:13 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resend -RE: Update on Seeking SO/AC/C "liaisons"