In addition to the explanation on the call, it would be helpful if the cochairs could put the process in writing, if it isn't already, so that those who can't make the call could easily reference it on the SubPro wiki. That way when we get beyond the comment triaging and into deliberations and consensus calls on recommendations, we have a handy document that outlines in clear terms the process that will be used. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:55 PM To: Mohamed Aslam <gmohamedaslam@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 25 March 2019 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Regarding the agenda below for the March 25 meeting if the full WG, I note the Board's comments to the Supplemental Initial Report regarding how the WG will come to Consensus recommendations. I believe all WG members would appreciate more clarity as to how Consensus will be measured and how that relates to the categorization of certain public comments as "New Ideas". The excerpt from the Board's comment is as follows: [cid:image001.png@01D4DE75.573DE100] As previously mentioned after the third F2F meeting in Kobe, I am concerned that a particular recommendation (characterized as "general agreement" in the Initial Report even though there was no Consensus Call), could be characterized as "Consensus" where dissent among WG members is labelled as a "new idea" rather than acknowledging that there is in fact a lack of true Consensus among WG members on the particular recommendation. I would appreciate hearing from Leadership with respect to this concern at the top of our next WG call. As we proceed through the summaries prepared by staff based on the work done by Subgroups A, B, and C, we will need to check each "New Idea" to determine whether it is (A) a new idea, consideration of which can be postponed for later policy work or (B) a concern representative of issues which demonstrate a lack of consensus in the WG regarding a particular recommendation. By way of example from the third F2F in Kobe, it appears there is no consensus in relation to the "autofill" suggestion for applications unless that recommendation is modified to exclude portions of the applications that relate to mission and purpose. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D4DE75.573DE100] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:11 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 25 March 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 3. Next steps for Sub Group comment analysis 4. Brief Review of ICANN64 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Activity 5. Review of comments - Supplemental Initial Report: see the document at:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBCW...: 2.3: Role of Application Comment (start at line 37, 2.3.e.4); 2.4 Change Requests 6. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.