Consensus on Recommendations
I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan
+1 Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations *EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
I could not agree more with Alan and Marc if I tried. Something is not a WG Recommendation if it isn’t a consensus based recommendation from the WG. Mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this community over the past couple of years (to the point where I have heard true multistakeholderists™ ask why they even bother). I hope this WG doesn’t get this wrong as well. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations This message originated external to the firm. Please use caution when opening any attachments or links within this email. Contact the IT Helpdesk with any questions. ________________________________ +1 Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations *EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Hello everyone I rarely post to the list but have been following it carefully. Alan is completely correct. Straying from WG consensus policy recommendations in the final report has dangerous downstream consequences where, through policy implementation into an application system, it becomes very tricky to navigate. The stakes are high and the capacity to make a mess is there for the asking without being crystal clear about consensus-based recommendations. Complete clarity about recommendations heads off many potential missteps and confusion that we have seen in the past with damaging impacts for ICANN, the stakeholder community and future applicants in any new TLD round. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7714 356150 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 23 Dec 2020, at 11:32, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> wrote:
I could not agree more with Alan and Marc if I tried. Something is not a WG Recommendation if it isn’t a consensus based recommendation from the WG. Mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this community over the past couple of years (to the point where I have heard true multistakeholderists™ ask why they even bother). I hope this WG doesn’t get this wrong as well.
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
This message originated external to the firm. Please use caution when opening any attachments or links within this email. Contact the IT Helpdesk with any questions. +1
Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>
<image001.png>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
*EXTERNAL TO GT*
I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording.
Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report.
For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation".
Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board.
That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus").
There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward.
We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not.
If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles.
I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation?
Alan
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Dear All, I also echo what Alan and other stated. In fact I have already included the same conditions in reply to the consensus call. Regards Kavouss On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:39 PM Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone
I rarely post to the list but have been following it carefully. Alan is completely correct. Straying from WG consensus policy recommendations in the final report has dangerous downstream consequences where, through policy implementation into an application system, it becomes very tricky to navigate. The stakes are high and the capacity to make a mess is there for the asking without being crystal clear about consensus-based recommendations.
Complete clarity about recommendations heads off many potential missteps and confusion that we have seen in the past with damaging impacts for ICANN, the stakeholder community and future applicants in any new TLD round.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7714 356150 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 23 Dec 2020, at 11:32, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> wrote:
I could not agree more with Alan and Marc if I tried. Something is not a WG Recommendation if it isn’t a consensus based recommendation from the WG. Mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this community over the past couple of years (to the point where I have heard true multistakeholderists™ ask why they even bother). I hope this WG doesn’t get this wrong as well.
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:12 AM *To:* alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
*This message originated external to the firm. Please use caution when opening any attachments or links within this email. Contact the IT Helpdesk with any questions.* ------------------------------ +1
*Marc H. Trachtenberg * Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>
<image001.png>
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM *To:* New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
**EXTERNAL TO GT**
I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording.
Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report.
For recommendation that achieve a *Full Consensus* or *Consensus* (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation".
Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board.
That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus").
There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward.
We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not.
If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion.
*But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles.*I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation?
Alan ------------------------------ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Like you Liz, I am following and totally agree with you and Alan on this. Great holidays to all and stay safe! 2021 full of health and Success!! 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 Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: Liz Williams <internet.governance@icloud.com> Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 08:40 To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Cc: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations Hello everyone I rarely post to the list but have been following it carefully. Alan is completely correct. Straying from WG consensus policy recommendations in the final report has dangerous downstream consequences where, through policy implementation into an application system, it becomes very tricky to navigate. The stakes are high and the capacity to make a mess is there for the asking without being crystal clear about consensus-based recommendations. Complete clarity about recommendations heads off many potential missteps and confusion that we have seen in the past with damaging impacts for ICANN, the stakeholder community and future applicants in any new TLD round. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7714 356150 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net<http://www.lizwilliams.net> S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 23 Dec 2020, at 11:32, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> wrote: I could not agree more with Alan and Marc if I tried. Something is not a WG Recommendation if it isn’t a consensus based recommendation from the WG. Mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this community over the past couple of years (to the point where I have heard true multistakeholderists™ ask why they even bother). I hope this WG doesn’t get this wrong as well. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations This message originated external to the firm. Please use caution when opening any attachments or links within this email. Contact the IT Helpdesk with any questions. ________________________________ +1 Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> <image001.png> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations *EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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.
My +1 to Alan was lazy but I did not have much to add so didn’t want to waste people’s time. But I strongly agree with Paul that mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this community over the past couple of years should be avoided. I would also point out to leadership that based on the response to Alan’s message and discussion on the calls, Alan’s position appears to be the consensus. In other words, the consensus of the WG is that the WG recommendations given to the GNSO should only include those where there was actual consensus. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 5:33 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations I could not agree more with Alan and Marc if I tried. Something is not a WG Recommendation if it isn’t a consensus based recommendation from the WG. Mislabeling things has caused an enormous amount of grief in this community over the past couple of years (to the point where I have heard true multistakeholderists™ ask why they even bother). I hope this WG doesn’t get this wrong as well. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 1:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations This message originated external to the firm. Please use caution when opening any attachments or links within this email. Contact the IT Helpdesk with any questions. ________________________________ +1 Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations *EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
I’m a little confused. As far as I know, a Recommendation has consensus under the WG Guidelines if it has either (a) Full Consensus (b) Consensus, or (c) Strong Support. What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be made if it does not have Full Consensus? If that were the case, there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations that only achieve “Consensus” or “Strong Support”. I would expect to see many “Consensus” designations and “Strong support” designations by Leadership for various Recommendations. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ +1 Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations *EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. ________________________________ 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 Ann, I agree with you Moreover, Jeff indicated *"Finally, the ICANN Board will have to make a decision on each and every one of these items regardless of whether there was consensus or not. For example, take the Recommendation that states all applications should be done in rounds. Assume there is Strong Support (but not Consensus). The Board will still have to decide whether applications should be done in rounds. Shouldn’t the Board know that there was Strong Support for this Recommendation when it considers this question? Shouldn’t it know that there was Strong Support within the Working Group for the “Recommendation” (even if not Consensus)?+"* It may give the impression as you indicated that there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations Kavouss On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
I’m a little confused. As far as I know, a Recommendation has consensus under the WG Guidelines if it has either
(a) Full Consensus
(b) Consensus, or
(c) Strong Support.
What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be made if it does not have Full Consensus? If that were the case, there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations that only achieve “Consensus” or “Strong Support”. I would expect to see many “Consensus” designations and “Strong support” designations by Leadership for various Recommendations.
Anne
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:12 AM *To:* alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
*[EXTERNAL]* ------------------------------
+1
*Marc H. Trachtenberg * Shareholder
Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020
M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>
[image: Greenberg Traurig]
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM *To:* New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
**EXTERNAL TO GT**
I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording.
Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report.
For recommendation that achieve a *Full Consensus* or *Consensus* (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation".
Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board.
That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus").
There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward.
We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not.
If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion.
*But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. *I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation?
Alan ------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
------------------------------
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 _______________________________________________ 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.
In the past, the GNSO Council had not ratified recommendations with "Strong Support", but I suppose that could be a matter of debate. Alan At 2020-12-23 01:29 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Iâm a little confused. As far as I know, a Recommendation has consensus under the WG Guidelines if it has either (a) Full Consensus (b) Consensus, or (c) Strong Support. What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be made if it does not have Full Consensus? If that were the case, there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations that only achieve âConsensusâ or âStrong Supportâ. I would expect to see many âConsensusâ designations and âStrong supportâ designations by Leadership for various Recommendations. Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
[EXTERNAL]
---------- +1
Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>trac@gtlaw.comâ|âwww.gtlaw.com â|â <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>View GT Biography
Greenberg Traurig
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
*EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording.
Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report.
For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation".
Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board.
That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus").
There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward.
We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not.
If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles.
I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation?
Alan
---------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
----------
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.
Alan, My concern here would be that there are some issues that arose from 2012 that the WG tried to address that may not have Consensus per se but that do have Strong Support. Two examples might be improvements in CPE evaluation championed by the ALAC and transparency requirements in relation to the Auctions process. There are, in particular, certain interests that may strongly oppose such improvements and may strongly prefer to have a “fallback” to 2012 implementation. Thus, I think the idea of eliminating improvements to the program that fall under the “Strong Support” designation (as not constituting Recommendations of the WG) is quite dangerous. Anne From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:59 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; langdonorr@gmail.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ In the past, the GNSO Council had not ratified recommendations with "Strong Support", but I suppose that could be a matter of debate. Alan At 2020-12-23 01:29 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: I’m a little confused. As far as I know, a Recommendation has consensus under the WG Guidelines if it has either (a) Full Consensus (b) Consensus, or (c) Strong Support. What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be made if it does not have Full Consensus? If that were the case, there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations that only achieve “Consensus†or “Strong Supportâ€. I would expect to see many “Consensus†designations and “Strong support†designations by Leadership for various Recommendations. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:12 AM To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ +1 Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>  | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>  |  View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations *EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report. For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. ________________________________ 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, as I said, that is subject to discussion and your position is probably reasonable. This entire subject has many highly contentious issues and perhaps we cannot move forward at all without accepting some level of disagreement. But the leadership position would also include recommendations with divergent support going forward... Perhaps there will not be any and this is a moot discussion. Or perhaps not. Alan At 2020-12-23 03:28 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Alan, My concern here would be that there are some issues that arose from 2012 that the WG tried to address that may not have Consensus per se but that do have Strong Support. Two examples might be improvements in CPE evaluation championed by the ALAC and transparency requirements in relation to the Auctions process. There are, in particular, certain interests that may strongly oppose such improvements and may strongly prefer to have a âfallbackâ to 2012 implementation. Thus, I think the idea of eliminating improvements to the program that fall under the âStrong Supportâ designation (as not constituting Recommendations of the WG) is quite dangerous.
Anne
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:59 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; langdonorr@gmail.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
[EXTERNAL]
---------- In the past, the GNSO Council had not ratified recommendations with "Strong Support", but I suppose that could be a matter of debate.
Alan
At 2020-12-23 01:29 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
Iâm a la little confused. As far as I know, a Recommendation has consensus under the WG Guidelines if it has either (a) Full Consensus (b) Consensus, or (c) Strong Support. What exactly is being put forward? That a Recommendation cannot be made if it does not have Full Consensus? If that were the case, there would be little point in all the deliberations we have gone through for Recommendations that only achieve âConsensusââ or âStrong Supportâ. I sp; I would expect to see many âConsensusâ desidesignations and âStrong supportâ designationtions by Leadership for various Recommendations. Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:12 AM To: <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
[EXTERNAL] ---------- +1
Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>trac@gtlaw.com â|âwww.gtlaww.gtlaw.com â|â <https://www.gtlaw.cotlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h>View GT Biography
Greenberg Traurig
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 12:47 AM To: New gTLD SubPro <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consensus on Recommendations
*EXTERNAL TO GT* I raised an issue during the last call and I wanted to repeat it here for those who were not on the call and have not reviewed the recording. Jeff described how the leadership team will assess the level of consensus on recommendations (packages of recommendations if I recall correctly, but that is not relevant here) and state them clearly in the final report.
For recommendation that achieve a Full Consensus or Consensus (as defined in the PDP Charter), that is fine. But I have a great problem if a "Recommendation" does not achieve either level of Consensus and is still labelled as a "Recommendation". Historically most Recommendations coming out of PDPs have WG consensus. Until recently, for the few cases where a "Recommendation" did not have WG consensus, the GNSO Council chose to not endorse it and did not pass it on to the Board. That changed recently with the EPDP where the GNSO Council ratified recommendations that did not achieve consensus, including even one with Divergent opinions (defined in the WG Charter as "No Consensus"). There is no way of knowing how the Board will treat such recommendations, nor how the CURRENT GNSO will react to receiving recommendation s from us that do not have consensus. But I feel that we should be taking a prudent stance going forward. We have been very careful only to draft recommendations that seem to have WG consensus. However, until we do the final assessment, we do not know if there is really agreement or not. If there is not agreement, that we must delete them as Recommendations. We still of course need to fully document the discussion AND the difference of opinion. But to keep them as a formal recommendation that might be accepted by the GNSO Council and the Board violates our basic operating principles. I think that many of us would react poorly to finding a specific recommendation on closed generics where clearly we do NOT have consensus. Why would it be more acceptable to keep other recommendations where the final assessment is that despite what we thought earlier, there is similarly no consensus on the recommendation? Alan ---------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information. ---------- 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. ç2510-2521.
----------
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.
participants (7)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Liz Williams -
McGrady, Paul D. -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com -
Vanda Scartezini