Hi Kiran and everyone, Not to speak for Marika but given the time of day in Europe I thought I’d take a stab at your question. As Marika mentioned upthread, the practice for formal Consensus Calls is to have those take place in relation to WG recommendations much later in the process, i.e. as an important tool to finalize the WG recommendations that will go into the WG report that is put out for public comment. In this case, the PPSAI WG has also expressly agreed to return to review each of the Preliminary Conclusions in each template upon the completion of initial deliberations on all the Charter questions. As such, the Chairs did not issue a Consensus Call per the WG Guidelines on this question (and attempted to reflect this distinction in the language circulated previously). The WG Guidelines expressly discourage voting, but specify that a poll (not a vote) can be taken in exceptional circumstances. In the IGO-INGO WG the Yes/No questions were asked as part of the formal Consensus Call on the proposed PDP recommendations, but not characterized as a vote. This was why, in tabulating the results of the Consensus Call, there was no actual counting of “votes” or numbers. Rather, in making his decision on the results of the Consensus Call, the Chair exercised his judgment as part of his role per the WG Guidelines. I hope this helps clarify things! FYI I thought I’d also take this opportunity to recall that this PPSAI WG did reach out to all GNSO SGs and Cs, as well as to all other ICANN SOs and ACs, as required by the GNSO’s PDP Manual. This was done in late January, for the specific Charter questions. We have received responses from the BC, IPC, NCUC and the ALAC, and their responses have been posted to the WG wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/SRzRAg. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. * -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Date: Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
Marika,
How would you reconcile this with what happened during the IOC/RCRC Working Group when, in order to establish consensus for particularly contentious issues, there was a "poll" or "vote"?
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Kiran, the GNSO WG Guidelines outline the process for the chairs on how to assess the level of support received which specifically does NOT include voting. I've copied the specific language below and as you can see it is intended to be an iterative process. I do want to note that the formal designation of the level of consensus typically takes place at the end of the process when recommendations are in the process of being finalised for inclusion into the Initial Report. In our case it is clear that many of the issues are tied together and the level of support may depend on the outcome on some of the other issues, so it may not be advisable or even possible to take formal consensus calls at this stage.
Best regards,
Marika
From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6
The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence.
Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.
On 22/05/14 18:37, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.
Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone (individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job of trying to determine what the consensus is.
Tim
On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C input/feedback.
Tim
On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:
Exactly our point. I believe you also made this point a couple weeks ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there should probably be outreach on this point.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Internet Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" ><jbladel@godaddy.com> > wrote: > > To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we > all > (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO? > > J. > > > On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil" > <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote: > >> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group >>members, >> we do >> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our >> individual >> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to >> remember >> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless >> of >> where you fall on the issue. >> >> K >> >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Internet Policy Counselor >> MarkMonitor >> 415-419-9138 (m) >> >> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. >> >> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" >> <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution. >> >> Could you clarify one point: >> >> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C, >> disagreedŠ.² Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ? >> >> Steve >> >> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney@fwdstrategies.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM >> To: Marika Konings >> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; >> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list >> >> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about >>the >> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per >> the >> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the >> template >> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l, >> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your >> comments and further discussion if needed. >> >> Thanks, >> Libby >> >> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com> >> >> >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings >> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: >> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated >> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting >> (if >> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the >> mailing >> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting: >> >> 1. Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion >> for C >> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you >>suggested >> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any >>other >> proposed edits? >> 2. Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you >>are >> of >> the view that there should be differences in the data fields >> displayed >> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations. >> 3. Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether >>it >> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services >>contact >> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from >>P/P >> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input >> on >> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for >> responses >> are also encouraged. >> 4. Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on >> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P >> registrations and >> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> >> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06 >> To: Marika Konings >> <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, >> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>" >> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list >> >> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call. Following up on >> requests >> made on the call ---- >> >> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions >> C(threshold), >> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially >> welcomed!) >> proposed edits. Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready >> reference. >> >> Regarding question C.3: If the following applies to you, please >> respond >> on the list: >> >> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to >> commercial >> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a >> difference in >> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed >> for p/p >> registrations by natural persons)? If the answer is YES, please >> specify >> the differences. >> >> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any >>YES >> people will step forward on the list. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Steve Metalitz, vice chair >> >> >> >> From: >> >> >>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounce >>s@ >> icann >> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Marika >> Konings >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM >> To: >>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG >> Meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marika >> >> Proposed Agenda PPSAI WG Meeting 20 May 2014 >> >> 1. Roll Call / SOI >> 2. Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question, >> C1 >> and C2 (as circulated by Don) >> 3. Review C3 is additional response/discussion needed in light >>of >> item 2? (see template attached) >> 4. Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached) >> 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> >> >> >> -- >> Libby Baney, JD >> President >> FWD Strategies International >> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com> >> P: 202-499-2296 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg