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
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> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:28 PM To: 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
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> 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> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:28 PM To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
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 Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 2:09 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; Jeff Neuman <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
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:image002.png@01D43BB0.735218B0] 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 Wilkinson; 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.
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> 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
_____________________________
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 Wilkinson; 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.
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:image002.png@01D43BB5.0714F3C0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:57 PM To: 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:image004.png@01D43BB5.06DA34B0] 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.
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> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 5:16 PM To: 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; Jeff Neuman <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:image001.png@01D43DEC.42D77660] 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:image002.png@01D43DEC.42D77660] 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.
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.
Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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@01D43E13.48C5CB90] 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<mailto: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:image002.png@01D43E13.48C5CB90] 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:image001.png@01D43E13.48C5CB90] 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.
Hi Jeff, I think it devalues broad participation in Working Groups to suddenly say you need an official spokesperson after years of work. I am concerned that this approach will discourage broad participation in PDP Working Groups in the future. The stated purpose for not taking a Consensus Call in advance of the Initial Report was that the group had not yet distilled its thoughts and there are many ideas and considerations out there. The request for one official representative is not at all consistent with the spirit of the WG’s waiver of the PDP requirement for Consensus Call prior to issuing an Initial Report. A Consensus Call is not a Consensus Call of constituencies, stakeholder groups, and advisory committees. It’s a Consensus Call of WG members. (If GNSO wants to change this, they should do it in PDP 3.0 so everybody knows the rules going in when volunteering to participate in a Working Group.) Regarding the IPC, as you know, there are now a large number of IPC members who either work directly for, or render services to, Contracted Parties. As you can well imagine, the views and perspectives of IPC members affiliated with Contracted Parties may well differ from those who do not in relation to Sub Pro issues. We don’t know to what degree since we are still preparing comments on the Initial Report. Thus, in relation to the IPC in particular, I would recommend that IPC Leadership not only raise this as a discussion issue in our next membership call, but that IPC take no action on this request for designation of one representative until the process of commenting formally on the Initial Report is complete. 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@01D43E02.AC9E9E00] 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 11:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast Cc: Drazek, Keith; Austin, Donna; Winterfeldt, Brian J.; Vicky Sheckler Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; '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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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:image005.png@01D43DFE.F0BDB8E0] 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<mailto: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:image006.png@01D43DFE.F0BDB8E0] 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:image005.png@01D43DFE.F0BDB8E0] 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. ________________________________ 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.
Jeff the role you describe in this latest email sounds more like a liaison than the empowered position initially described. In my opinion, those are vastly different. I could see a role for liaisons. I would call them Lower case liaisons because we already have Upper case Liaisons to the Chartering Organization with Donna and Keith (and previously Paul). In fact during review of CC2 submissions, there were several times where we were unsure of what was meant by written submissions and it would have been helpful to have a similar role for an individual to get clarity or ask questions. Go back, consult, and return. Almost as if the WG sent a letter or email to an C/SG/SO/AC asking the same information. If the intent is to continue with an empowered role for these individuals, then I do have concerns. As you said, we’re trying new things here. We have an initial report without consensus calls or initial recommendations. We have work tracks split into two (1-4 and 5) that someday may unite. But when it comes to how consensus is assessed, that is a critical function of the PDP WG. And yes – it’s not easy but we also have a charter that guides how this group operates. There is nothing in the charter that calls for this new status of participant, one that carries more weight that others who have been participating for a year or longer. No where does the charter call for participants to be designated by an C/SG/SO/AC. That being said - I think we are a long ways off from consensus calls with this group. The comment period was just extended by 3 weeks, its going to take months to sort through the feedback and then we as a group need to develop initial recommendations. That’s a lot to get done, even with weekly calls. And that’s just WT 1-4. I’d like to recommend that we delay any call for these new empowered representatives until the group as a whole has a better understanding of the work that lies ahead and the structure of the leadership team going forward. As I recall from a while back, there is still an outstanding question of what the leadership of the PDP will look like post initial report so maybe sorting that out first might yield a better understanding of the task at hand and present possible solutions. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:49 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; '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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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@01D43E19.4B2C5C90] 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<mailto: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:image002.png@01D43E19.4B2C5C90] 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:image001.png@01D43E19.4B2C5C90] 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.
All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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@01D43EAF.5B66F520] 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<mailto: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:image002.png@01D43EAF.5B66F520] 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:image001.png@01D43EAF.5B66F520] 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.
Dear all, As this discussion continues, I have corrected Brian Winterfeldt’s address (which was wrong the first time I copied him.) I really do appreciate how difficult it is going to be for Jeff and Cheryl to measure Consensus in such a large Working Group. And it will be even more difficult in connection with Work Track 5. That being said, “somebody’s got to do it.” Given the many choices for the type of consensus listed in the WG Guidelines, there should be plenty of room to categorize the level of consensus achieved in the various views expressed in the WG. In this regard, looking forward, it is difficult to see how Leadership of Sub Pro can avoid “polling” when measuring consensus. (And the WG has not yet even presented the recommendations to the full WG for this purpose or addressed coordination among the Work Tracks.) It seems to me that the Working Group guidelines on measuring consensus are quite clear on how Consensus should be measured. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/an... (See the applicable excerpt on developing consensus below.) The Guidelines further state that if there is a desire to “deviate” from the specified method of measuring Consensus, this has to be “affirmatively stated in the Charter”. Assuming Version 3.2 of the WG guidelines (Annex 1 to the GNSO Operating Procedures) is the correct version, please see page 9 at the link above which provides: [cid:image002.png@01D43EC2.0B7A02B0] Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D43EC2.7EC76000] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:13 AM To: Jeff Neuman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast Cc: Vicky Sheckler; Winterfeldt, Brian J.; Drazek, Keith Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julie Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; '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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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:image005.png@01D43EBB.494879C0] 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<mailto: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:image006.png@01D43EBB.494879C0] 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:image005.png@01D43EBB.494879C0] 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. ________________________________ 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.
Anne, Thanks for this note. I guess clarity is in the eye of the beholder. The section you quote requires the Co-Chairs to “make an evaluation of the designation [of the level of Consensus] and publish it to the group for review.” That leaves open a lot of latitude for the co-chairs to come up with its evaluation methodology (which of course is reviewable by the Working Group), so long the co-chairs publish it for review. What may be clear to some, is not as clear to others. I do not see how a proposal by the Co-Chairs to appoint liaisons (or even empowered designees) deviates from the Working Group Guidelines. Please note that the Co-Chairs have not stated that we will only look to the designees to determine Consensus. We have just stated that knowing whether the positions that are being taken are by an individual or a group will “help” the Co-Chairs in our evaluation. You may not like this method and that is ok and that may be the opinion of the full group, I don’t know. But not liking the fact that the Co-Chairs are seeking help to evaluate the designation in this manner is VERY different than an accusation that the Co-Chairs are looking to deviate from the Working Group Guidelines. As we stated on the call, Cheryl and I will review this with the Council Liaisons this week in our Leadership meeting and communicate back to the group. 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:30 PM To: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: Brian Winterfeldt (Brian@Winterfeldt.law) <Brian@Winterfeldt.law>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Dear all, As this discussion continues, I have corrected Brian Winterfeldt’s address (which was wrong the first time I copied him.) I really do appreciate how difficult it is going to be for Jeff and Cheryl to measure Consensus in such a large Working Group. And it will be even more difficult in connection with Work Track 5. That being said, “somebody’s got to do it.” Given the many choices for the type of consensus listed in the WG Guidelines, there should be plenty of room to categorize the level of consensus achieved in the various views expressed in the WG. In this regard, looking forward, it is difficult to see how Leadership of Sub Pro can avoid “polling” when measuring consensus. (And the WG has not yet even presented the recommendations to the full WG for this purpose or addressed coordination among the Work Tracks.) It seems to me that the Working Group guidelines on measuring consensus are quite clear on how Consensus should be measured. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/an... (See the applicable excerpt on developing consensus below.) The Guidelines further state that if there is a desire to “deviate” from the specified method of measuring Consensus, this has to be “affirmatively stated in the Charter”. Assuming Version 3.2 of the WG guidelines (Annex 1 to the GNSO Operating Procedures) is the correct version, please see page 9 at the link above which provides: [cid:image001.png@01D43EE2.485862B0] Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D43EE2.485862B0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:13 AM To: Jeff Neuman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; Jim Prendergast Cc: Vicky Sheckler; Winterfeldt, Brian J.; Drazek, Keith Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julie Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; '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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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:image003.png@01D43EE2.485862B0] 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<mailto: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:image004.png@01D43EE2.485862B0] 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:image003.png@01D43EE2.485862B0] 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. ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Jeff. Discussion is always good. Perhaps we both agree on the following guideline re determining Consensus levels: [cid:image005.png@01D43ECD.8B8C42F0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D43ECD.8C1940B0] 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: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:32 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Annebeth Lange'; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast Cc: Brian Winterfeldt (Brian@Winterfeldt.law); Vicky Sheckler; Drazek, Keith Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, Thanks for this note. I guess clarity is in the eye of the beholder. The section you quote requires the Co-Chairs to “make an evaluation of the designation [of the level of Consensus] and publish it to the group for review.” That leaves open a lot of latitude for the co-chairs to come up with its evaluation methodology (which of course is reviewable by the Working Group), so long the co-chairs publish it for review. What may be clear to some, is not as clear to others. I do not see how a proposal by the Co-Chairs to appoint liaisons (or even empowered designees) deviates from the Working Group Guidelines. Please note that the Co-Chairs have not stated that we will only look to the designees to determine Consensus. We have just stated that knowing whether the positions that are being taken are by an individual or a group will “help” the Co-Chairs in our evaluation. You may not like this method and that is ok and that may be the opinion of the full group, I don’t know. But not liking the fact that the Co-Chairs are seeking help to evaluate the designation in this manner is VERY different than an accusation that the Co-Chairs are looking to deviate from the Working Group Guidelines. As we stated on the call, Cheryl and I will review this with the Council Liaisons this week in our Leadership meeting and communicate back to the group. 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: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:30 PM To: 'Annebeth Lange' <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; '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>> Cc: Brian Winterfeldt (Brian@Winterfeldt.law<mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law>) <Brian@Winterfeldt.law<mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Dear all, As this discussion continues, I have corrected Brian Winterfeldt’s address (which was wrong the first time I copied him.) I really do appreciate how difficult it is going to be for Jeff and Cheryl to measure Consensus in such a large Working Group. And it will be even more difficult in connection with Work Track 5. That being said, “somebody’s got to do it.” Given the many choices for the type of consensus listed in the WG Guidelines, there should be plenty of room to categorize the level of consensus achieved in the various views expressed in the WG. In this regard, looking forward, it is difficult to see how Leadership of Sub Pro can avoid “polling” when measuring consensus. (And the WG has not yet even presented the recommendations to the full WG for this purpose or addressed coordination among the Work Tracks.) It seems to me that the Working Group guidelines on measuring consensus are quite clear on how Consensus should be measured. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/an... (See the applicable excerpt on developing consensus below.) The Guidelines further state that if there is a desire to “deviate” from the specified method of measuring Consensus, this has to be “affirmatively stated in the Charter”. Assuming Version 3.2 of the WG guidelines (Annex 1 to the GNSO Operating Procedures) is the correct version, please see page 9 at the link above which provides: [cid:image008.png@01D43ECD.8B8C42F0] Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image009.png@01D43ECD.8B8C42F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:13 AM To: Jeff Neuman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; Jim Prendergast Cc: Vicky Sheckler; Winterfeldt, Brian J.; Drazek, Keith Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julie Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; '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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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:image010.png@01D43ECD.8B8C42F0] 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<mailto: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:image011.png@01D43ECD.8B8C42F0] 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:image010.png@01D43ECD.8B8C42F0] 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. ________________________________ 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.
Hi Annebeth, This is interesting in the ccTLD context, as there are so many ccTLDs, not all of them represented in ccNSO. I am sure everyone wants views from as many people as possible. But if we are going through one 'spokesperson' purporting to represent ccNSO (and/or all ccTLDs or some subset of them) then it would be fair for us all to know which ccTLDs are providing their views, and how a consensus position is derived for the spokesperson to represent. I personally still do not understand why ccTLDs have any legitimate interest whatsoever in geographic (or any other) name reservations in gTLDs. What is their concern over what is registered in the gTLD space, other than to protect their "competitive interest" as a ccTLD operator? In other words, I think I understand why for example the .fr operator would not want competition from .France, .FRA, .Paris or .Cannes (or .French, .Frances, etc. etc.). But I think the main reason is to protect the .fr TLD from competition, rather than any real and legitimate reason. ccTLDs are not governments, and in my humble opinion should be given status of governments in our deliberations. Of course, I disagree with government positions too, but at least they can purport to represent their own people -- ccTLDs cannot. Also, it is interesting to consider how the ccNSO would consider GNSO views in their deliberations... has that ever even happened? It also will be interesting to know if ccTLDs are reserving all the names in their own TLDs, which they want reserved in the gTLDs. If not, why not?! Some of us certainly will be looking to the ccNSO spokesperson to enlighten us on that. I hope we can understand ccTLD motivation for participating, and understand the full and true reasoning behind any position that any geo names should be reserved, if any. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no> wrote:
All,
just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups.
The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here.
But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us.
Best regards,
Annebeth
Kind regards,
Annebeth B. Lange
Special Adviser International Policy
UNINETT Norid AS
annebeth.lange@norid.no
Mobile: +47 959 11 559
*From: *Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Date: *Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "' lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Jim Prendergast < jim@GALWAYSG.COM> *Cc: *Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic
Anne,
I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down.
I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive.
I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them?
*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 <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Sent:* Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; ' lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> *Cc:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. < BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic
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
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <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 <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2018 5:16 PM *To:* 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; Jeff Neuman <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
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson [mailto:lists@ christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>] *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2018 1:57 PM *To:* 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> 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
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2018 11:53 AM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson; 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 <jeff.neuman@valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2018 2:09 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; Jeff Neuman <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> 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> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2018 2:28 PM *To:* 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 or 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 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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi Mike I am travelling today and pretty busy, but I will give you an answer on this tomorrow. Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 29. aug. 2018 kl. 04:19 skrev Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>: Hi Annebeth, This is interesting in the ccTLD context, as there are so many ccTLDs, not all of them represented in ccNSO. I am sure everyone wants views from as many people as possible. But if we are going through one 'spokesperson' purporting to represent ccNSO (and/or all ccTLDs or some subset of them) then it would be fair for us all to know which ccTLDs are providing their views, and how a consensus position is derived for the spokesperson to represent. I personally still do not understand why ccTLDs have any legitimate interest whatsoever in geographic (or any other) name reservations in gTLDs. What is their concern over what is registered in the gTLD space, other than to protect their "competitive interest" as a ccTLD operator? In other words, I think I understand why for example the .fr operator would not want competition from .France, .FRA, .Paris or .Cannes (or .French, .Frances, etc. etc.). But I think the main reason is to protect the .fr TLD from competition, rather than any real and legitimate reason. ccTLDs are not governments, and in my humble opinion should be given status of governments in our deliberations. Of course, I disagree with government positions too, but at least they can purport to represent their own people -- ccTLDs cannot. Also, it is interesting to consider how the ccNSO would consider GNSO views in their deliberations... has that ever even happened? It also will be interesting to know if ccTLDs are reserving all the names in their own TLDs, which they want reserved in the gTLDs. If not, why not?! Some of us certainly will be looking to the ccNSO spokesperson to enlighten us on that. I hope we can understand ccTLD motivation for participating, and understand the full and true reasoning behind any position that any geo names should be reserved, if any. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> wrote: All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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@01D43EAF.5B66F520] 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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> _____________________________ <image002.png> 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:image001.png@01D43EAF.5B66F520] 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Mike I think the Report from the Study Group on the use of country & territory names best explains the interest of ccTLDs, https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_39977/unct-final-02jul... Let us have a chat in Barcelona on this. Kindly Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 04:19 To: "Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange@norid.no> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>, Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Hi Annebeth, This is interesting in the ccTLD context, as there are so many ccTLDs, not all of them represented in ccNSO. I am sure everyone wants views from as many people as possible. But if we are going through one 'spokesperson' purporting to represent ccNSO (and/or all ccTLDs or some subset of them) then it would be fair for us all to know which ccTLDs are providing their views, and how a consensus position is derived for the spokesperson to represent. I personally still do not understand why ccTLDs have any legitimate interest whatsoever in geographic (or any other) name reservations in gTLDs. What is their concern over what is registered in the gTLD space, other than to protect their "competitive interest" as a ccTLD operator? In other words, I think I understand why for example the .fr operator would not want competition from .France, .FRA, .Paris or .Cannes (or .French, .Frances, etc. etc.). But I think the main reason is to protect the .fr TLD from competition, rather than any real and legitimate reason. ccTLDs are not governments, and in my humble opinion should be given status of governments in our deliberations. Of course, I disagree with government positions too, but at least they can purport to represent their own people -- ccTLDs cannot. Also, it is interesting to consider how the ccNSO would consider GNSO views in their deliberations... has that ever even happened? It also will be interesting to know if ccTLDs are reserving all the names in their own TLDs, which they want reserved in the gTLDs. If not, why not?! Some of us certainly will be looking to the ccNSO spokesperson to enlighten us on that. I hope we can understand ccTLD motivation for participating, and understand the full and true reasoning behind any position that any geo names should be reserved, if any. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> wrote: All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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@01D44050.49335810] 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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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:image002.png@01D44050.49335810] 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:image001.png@01D44050.49335810] 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. _______________________________________________ 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
Mike, It's understand in the GNSO policy process that gTLD policy affects a myriad of parties, not all of them GNSO constituents. So whether ccTLDs, governments, sub-domain users, social network users are affected by an specific policy, it's our duty to consider these groups as well. So although only the GNSO constituents vote on policies, which occur at GNSO Council, we should never limit the scope of our considerations to them. That doesn't mean that everyone, GNSO constituent or not, will get what that group wants; in fact, the opposite is the most likely outcome. Rubens
On 28 Aug 2018, at 23:19, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Hi Annebeth,
This is interesting in the ccTLD context, as there are so many ccTLDs, not all of them represented in ccNSO. I am sure everyone wants views from as many people as possible. But if we are going through one 'spokesperson' purporting to represent ccNSO (and/or all ccTLDs or some subset of them) then it would be fair for us all to know which ccTLDs are providing their views, and how a consensus position is derived for the spokesperson to represent.
I personally still do not understand why ccTLDs have any legitimate interest whatsoever in geographic (or any other) name reservations in gTLDs. What is their concern over what is registered in the gTLD space, other than to protect their "competitive interest" as a ccTLD operator? In other words, I think I understand why for example the .fr operator would not want competition from .France, .FRA, .Paris or .Cannes (or .French, .Frances, etc. etc.). But I think the main reason is to protect the .fr TLD from competition, rather than any real and legitimate reason. ccTLDs are not governments, and in my humble opinion should be given status of governments in our deliberations.
Of course, I disagree with government positions too, but at least they can purport to represent their own people -- ccTLDs cannot. Also, it is interesting to consider how the ccNSO would consider GNSO views in their deliberations... has that ever even happened? It also will be interesting to know if ccTLDs are reserving all the names in their own TLDs, which they want reserved in the gTLDs. If not, why not?! Some of us certainly will be looking to the ccNSO spokesperson to enlighten us on that. I hope we can understand ccTLD motivation for participating, and understand the full and true reasoning behind any position that any geo names should be reserved, if any.
Best, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> wrote: All,
just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups.
The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here.
But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us.
Best regards,
Annebeth
Kind regards,
Annebeth B. Lange
Special Adviser International Policy
UNINETT Norid AS
annebeth.lange@norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>
Mobile: +47 959 11 559
From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com <mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com <mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic
Anne,
I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down.
I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive.
I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them?
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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com <mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com <mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic
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> _____________________________
<image001.png>
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 <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:35 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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> _____________________________
<image002.png>
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 <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> _____________________________
<image001.png>
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 <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 <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.
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi Mike, I was shocked to read your statement: "ccTLDs are not governments, and in my humble opinion should be given status of governments in our deliberations". As you know, ccTLDs make up the ccNSO and as such are an independent group with clear differentiations from governments (GAC). I am confident that during the upcoming discussions this will be respected and the ccTLDs are given an independent voice and position. If you do not understand the motivations behind an interest from ccTLD in geographic domains then the best way to forward is to learn about the other stakeholders´ opinions before coming to any conclusions. Geographic domains, specially related to country names, has long been debated within the ICANN community and there is vast documentation within the ccNSO that can enlighten you. I am confident Annebeth will provide you with some of these items and a closer conversation with members of the ccNSO can also help. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Aug 28, 2018, at 8:19 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Hi Annebeth, This is interesting in the ccTLD context, as there are so many ccTLDs, not all of them represented in ccNSO. I am sure everyone wants views from as many people as possible. But if we are going through one 'spokesperson' purporting to represent ccNSO (and/or all ccTLDs or some subset of them) then it would be fair for us all to know which ccTLDs are providing their views, and how a consensus position is derived for the spokesperson to represent. I personally still do not understand why ccTLDs have any legitimate interest whatsoever in geographic (or any other) name reservations in gTLDs. What is their concern over what is registered in the gTLD space, other than to protect their "competitive interest" as a ccTLD operator? In other words, I think I understand why for example the .fr operator would not want competition from .France, .FRA, .Paris or .Cannes (or .French, .Frances, etc. etc.). But I think the main reason is to protect the .fr TLD from competition, rather than any real and legitimate reason. ccTLDs are not governments, and in my humble opinion should be given status of governments in our deliberations. Of course, I disagree with government positions too, but at least they can purport to represent their own people -- ccTLDs cannot. Also, it is interesting to consider how the ccNSO would consider GNSO views in their deliberations... has that ever even happened? It also will be interesting to know if ccTLDs are reserving all the names in their own TLDs, which they want reserved in the gTLDs. If not, why not?! Some of us certainly will be looking to the ccNSO spokesperson to enlighten us on that. I hope we can understand ccTLD motivation for participating, and understand the full and true reasoning behind any position that any geo names should be reserved, if any. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> wrote: All, just a few words on this from a ccTLD point of view. We all know that it takes a lot of time and energy to be play an active part in the work of the working groups and PDPs. In our world, there are a lot of small ccTLDs spread over the world that not at all have resources to attend and participate at this level. Therefore, I as a co-lead in Worktrack 5, try to update all the regional organisations within ccNSO and send reports to the ccNSO council on the development in the working groups. The 4 regional organisations (ROs) of the ccTLDs – CENTR, AFTLD, LACTLD and APTLD have all treated the issues of interest for them and have had extensive discussions. I don’t feel that it is inappropriate that these ROs representing the ccNSO find their spokesman based on the discussions they have had. That said, we as ccTLDs, are not very familiar with the concept of consensus in the GNSO-world, and I am certainly not an expert here. But if you are interested in hearing the views of as many ccTLDs as possible – especially relevant for Worktrack 5 – this is a method that will work for us. Best regards, Annebeth Kind regards, Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, 27 August 2018 at 20:50 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J." <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Anne, I cannot answer your question on the CCWG-Accountability group since I was not intimately involved in that group and only contributed to the work in a few matters. There is no good answer for me on that question because of my lack of knowledge, so that is a rabbit hole I will not go down. I have already explained why we are doing this. If/when the IPC (or any other group submits comments), if the Working Group has questions about the IPC statement, we would like a person that we could go to within the PDP that could either answer those questions or if they do not know a person we can hold accountable to go back to the group to find out the answers. In addition, in the Statements of Interest that are filed, there are many people listed as being part of each of the groups. Cheryl and I would like a way to understand that when a person that happens to be in one of the groups is speaking on behalf of that group or on behalf of themselves or their employer. And, in accordance with the Working Group Guidelines, we are also responsible for ensuring that we have the views of each of the groups. If we don’t have the view of a C/SG/SO/AC, etc., on a recommendation, Cheryl and I can go to the point person from that group to ask them their position (if they have one). Finally, when we measure the level of consensus, though not dispositive, the views of the different Cs, SGs, ACs, etc. are instructive. I guess we can go around and around on this issue, but it is clear that will not convince you. So, let me ask this question to try and get at this a different way. What are you concerned about? When we move ahead with this plan, what are the pitfalls that you see and what can we do to address them? 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 2:03 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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>> Cc: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Vicky Sheckler <victoria.sheckler@riaa.com<mailto:victoria.sheckler@riaa.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic 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> _____________________________ <image001.png> 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<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> _____________________________ <image002.png> 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> _____________________________ <image001.png> 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. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I believe from Advisory Committee as ALAC could be one representative from each region to get broadly the points of views of each region, since they are quite different regarding newgTLD aspects. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 11:35 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: "kdrazek@Verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> 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> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 5:16 PM To: 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson' <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; Jeff Neuman <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:image001.png@01D43DEC.42D77660] 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:image002.png@01D43DEC.42D77660] 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.
Points of view within the IPC may not differ on a regional basis but certainly differ greatly depending on whether or not the member comes from or renders services to a Contracted Party. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D43DF6.BF3F1AA0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 11:10 AM To: Jeff Neuman; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jim Prendergast Cc: Drazek, Keith Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Follow up on Consensus Topic Importance: High I believe from Advisory Committee as ALAC could be one representative from each region to get broadly the points of views of each region, since they are quite different regarding newgTLD aspects. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 11:35 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "'lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson'" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Cc: "kdrazek@Verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com>" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> 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:image001.png@01D43DEC.42D77660] 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:image002.png@01D43DEC.42D77660] 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.
Thanks Jim for the great questions. To my knowledge this has not been done before and we are trying this out as we have tried out a number of other things in the past. Cheryl and I have the task of trying to determine the level of consensus on each of the recommendations. A task as I am sure you can appreciate has garnered a lot more attention lately and one that has been challenged in at least one Working Group recently. The point of this exercise is not at all to discourage different proposals, viewpoints, affirmations, etc. The purpose is to help Cheryl and I understand whether positions that are taken are that of an individual, company or whether they are the position of the Stakeholder Group, Constituency, Advisory Committee, etc. As you note below, we are trying to figure out ways to measure consensus in a qualitative manner as opposed to quantitative. The example I user is if you have 100 people in a Working Group where 90 of them are RySG members, and you have 1 or 2 members from other Cs, ACs or SGs, then just because the 90 RySG members believe in a specific position and outnumber all other positions on at least a 9:1 ration, that does not mean that there is by any means Consensus, Rough Consensus, etc. Your question on this new "empowered representative" is a great one. A person asked me yesterday about our expectations for that role and here was my response to her (I have eliminated her name and the name of the group). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear XXXX, I think you would make a great spokesperson for the _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] and I am confident you could do the job well. The job would not be much different than what you are already doing. The only different aspect is that we (the SubPro leadership) would assume that anytime you make a contribution (email, oral, etc), that unless you said otherwise, it would be the official _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] position. It would be your job if this were not the case to make sure that you preface any non-official _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] statement with something like, the _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] has no official position, or I am speaking now on behalf of [COMPANY NAME], or on behalf of yourself...whatever the case may be. It would also mean that if we needed someone to give us more context or information on a _____________ [NAME OF SG/C/AC] position (which could likely happen when the WG is reviewing the comments),the SubPro leadership could address those questions to you. **************************************************************************** I hope this helps. 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: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:58 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Follow up on Consensus Topic 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
participants (9)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Annebeth Lange -
Jeff Neuman -
Jim Prendergast -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rosalía Morales -
Rubens Kuhl -
Vanda Scartezini