Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses
All, Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs' designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions. We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is "Consensus." That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had "Full Consensus", but Output 2.3 had Consensus. We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday's Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report. We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work! Sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs
Dear Jeff and Cheryl Thanks again for the tremendous effort! I would like to note for the record and for your consideration that I miss a clearer assessment in your designations of two points: - Applicant Support Program: I feel that the lack or omission to consider reducing/waiving ongoing registry fees lacks full consensus. This is a question that went into the public comment and received mixed feedback. Hence, I feel that the designations should note that there is not full consensus (or consensus) on the absence of any recommendation in this regard. - Closed generics: I don't fully understand that we can have "full consensus" on not agreeing. At least from my side, we have noted certainly a dismay at not being able to find a consensus solution. And we certainly disagree with not having a substantive recommendation - hence, I guess that "full consensus" is not entirely apposite, i.e. it makes limited sense to have this designation regarding a "non-agreement"... Hope this is somehow helpful... Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Montag, 11. Januar 2021 23:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses All, Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs' designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions. We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is "Consensus." That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had "Full Consensus", but Output 2.3 had Consensus. We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday's Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report. We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work! Sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs
Dear Jeff Good morning Yes That is ok I am doing well for the moment Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Jan 2021, at 07:26, Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff and Cheryl
Thanks again for the tremendous effort!
I would like to note for the record and for your consideration that I miss a clearer assessment in your designations of two points:
- Applicant Support Program: I feel that the lack or omission to consider reducing/waiving ongoing registry fees lacks full consensus. This is a question that went into the public comment and received mixed feedback. Hence, I feel that the designations should note that there is not full consensus (or consensus) on the absence of any recommendation in this regard.
- Closed generics: I don’t fully understand that we can have “full consensus” on not agreeing. At least from my side, we have noted certainly a dismay at not being able to find a consensus solution. And we certainly disagree with not having a substantive recommendation – hence, I guess that “full consensus” is not entirely apposite, i.e. it makes limited sense to have this designation regarding a “non-agreement”…
Hope this is somehow helpful…
Kind regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Montag, 11. Januar 2021 23:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses
All,
Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs’ designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions.
We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.” That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus.
We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday’s Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report.
We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work!
Sincerely,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Jorge and we can discuss this during the call later today. [cid:image002.png@01D6E8C0.0D4AD060] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:26 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: AW: Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses Dear Jeff and Cheryl Thanks again for the tremendous effort! I would like to note for the record and for your consideration that I miss a clearer assessment in your designations of two points: * Applicant Support Program: I feel that the lack or omission to consider reducing/waiving ongoing registry fees lacks full consensus. This is a question that went into the public comment and received mixed feedback. Hence, I feel that the designations should note that there is not full consensus (or consensus) on the absence of any recommendation in this regard. * Closed generics: I don't fully understand that we can have "full consensus" on not agreeing. At least from my side, we have noted certainly a dismay at not being able to find a consensus solution. And we certainly disagree with not having a substantive recommendation - hence, I guess that "full consensus" is not entirely apposite, i.e. it makes limited sense to have this designation regarding a "non-agreement"... Hope this is somehow helpful... Kind regards Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Montag, 11. Januar 2021 23:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses All, Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs' designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions. We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is "Consensus." That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had "Full Consensus", but Output 2.3 had Consensus. We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday's Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report. We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work! Sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs
On 12 Jan 2021, at 03:25, Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Jeff and Cheryl
Thanks again for the tremendous effort!
I would like to note for the record and for your consideration that I miss a clearer assessment in your designations of two points:
- Applicant Support Program: I feel that the lack or omission to consider reducing/waiving ongoing registry fees lacks full consensus. This is a question that went into the public comment and received mixed feedback. Hence, I feel that the designations should note that there is not full consensus (or consensus) on the absence of any recommendation in this regard.
The overall consensus level of topic 17 is already Consensus, not Full Consensus. So any appointment of something lacking in topic 17 would need much more opposition to be downgraded to "Strong Support", so perhaps it's more the lack of mention you are questioning ?
- Closed generics: I don’t fully understand that we can have “full consensus” on not agreeing. At least from my side, we have noted certainly a dismay at not being able to find a consensus solution. And we certainly disagree with not having a substantive recommendation – hence, I guess that “full consensus” is not entirely apposite, i.e. it makes limited sense to have this designation regarding a “non-agreement”…
Even your comment agrees that we haven't reached an agreement. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a dismay of not being able to find a solution... so full consensus is supported by many designations, including yours. Rubens
Hope this is somehow helpful…
Kind regards
Jorge
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Montag, 11. Januar 2021 23:13 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses
All,
Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs’ designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions.
We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.” That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus.
We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday’s Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report.
We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work!
Sincerely,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Jeff and Cheryl, In the summary of the Consensus designations, you noted as to several topics, such as Topic 27, 30, and 34, that one member noted some opposition. Accordingly, I would request that the summary itself note the nature of my opposition (as one member) to 29.2 as to the continuation of the existing Name Collision Occurrence Framework moving forward into the next round if no new Framework is adopted. The chart of responses should also be amended to show "No Support for 29.2" in the column which designates level of support in my personal responses as to Topic 29. Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:13 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs' designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions. We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is "Consensus." That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had "Full Consensus", but Output 2.3 had Consensus. We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday's Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report. We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work! Sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs ________________________________ 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, The Leadership notes are provided for your benefit to understand our thinking. We were not necessarily intending to include these in the final report itself, but we can discuss. So unless there is a decision to include the leadership notes in the Final Report, lets not focus on revising those. Anne - To clarify, you would like the Table of Responses to be amended so that you are down for not supporting 29.2, is that correct? With respect to Sections 27, 30 and 34, you are not on record as showing a lack of support. I have attached your response to the consensus call to this email. Please clarify? [cid:image002.png@01D6E8D2.DC0E28E0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:41 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses Thanks Jeff and Cheryl, In the summary of the Consensus designations, you noted as to several topics, such as Topic 27, 30, and 34, that one member noted some opposition. Accordingly, I would request that the summary itself note the nature of my opposition (as one member) to 29.2 as to the continuation of the existing Name Collision Occurrence Framework moving forward into the next round if no new Framework is adopted. The chart of responses should also be amended to show "No Support for 29.2" in the column which designates level of support in my personal responses as to Topic 29. Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:13 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs' designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions. We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is "Consensus." That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had "Full Consensus", but Output 2.3 had Consensus. We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday's Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report. We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work! Sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs ________________________________ 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.
participants (5)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Arasteh -
Jeff Neuman -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Rubens Kuhl