Dear all, I would like to clarify that the text I presented in yesterdays plenary was the text we've reached consensus on in this subgroup, without any alteration. I've attached the text as it was shared with the plenary by Bernard on September 21st. Best, Niels
Thanks Niels. So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures in the subgroup? Will the subgroup be having a call in the near future to discuss this? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:58 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] clarification Dear all, I would like to clarify that the text I presented in yesterdays plenary was the text we've reached consensus on in this subgroup, without any alteration. I've attached the text as it was shared with the plenary by Bernard on September 21st. Best, Niels ________________________________ 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, It was the text proposed by Jorge. Greg On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Thanks Niels. So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures in the subgroup?
Will the subgroup be having a call in the near future to discuss this? Thank you, Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _______________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com -----Original Message----- From: ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-hr-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:58 AM To: ws2-hr@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-hr] clarification
Dear all,
I would like to clarify that the text I presented in yesterdays plenary was the text we've reached consensus on in this subgroup, without any alteration. I've attached the text as it was shared with the plenary by Bernard on September 21st.
Best,
Niels
________________________________
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. _______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Hi, On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures in the subgroup?
It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion. Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached to a proposed recommendation. This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level. avri
All. I don't think we have "a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level." I've gone back to the Transcript and notes to confirm my recollection. It's clear that the Ombudsman group is in that situation. It was pretty clear that an aspect of their report was not getting sufficient support from the Plenary to move beyond it. So they were told to go back and try again. That is not where we stand. There was no Plenary decision at all. Nor was there a "knotty issue" brought to the plenary (although one could say that any issue that inspires a "dissent" is somewhat knotty). There was a request that the Plenary consider resolving an issue differently from the way that the Subgroup did. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript (slightly cleaned up by listening to the recording):
THOMAS RICKERT: Okay. Thanks very much. Now, it appears like the, which our sub team has submitted a report and that there were some last-minute changes which were controversial in the sub team itself. I think that given this controversy the sub team needs to take this back and discuss this, so that we get a report to the plenary which has the status of being confirmed by the sub team. I think it was interesting though to get some views but I guess it clearly shows that the plenary doesn't have sufficient information to take a decision today.
We have one minute left in this call. So I'm afraid that we need to end this discussion for today. There will be another plenary on the 11th. And let me now hand over to my fellow co chair Jordan for closing remarks and adjournment.
JORDAN CARTER: Thanks Thomas. Niels is that you?
NIELS TEN OEVER: I’m sorry, Thomas, I have to ask can we please schedule this for next plenary and not just point this back to the subgroup. I think in the subgroup we have managed to come to a consensus with the minority statement. I think if we want to get rid of the minority statement I think we would do it, have a discussion in the plenary not point it back to the subgroup because I think in the subgroup I'm not sure how much we can move it and we would really like to have more time to discuss this in the plenary if possible.
JORDAN CARTER: We will definitely have this topic on the agenda for the next plenary.
Thomas, do you want to add anything more to that?
THOMAS RICKERT: No I just wanted to confirm we’re going to discuss it at the next meeting and if you as rapporteur inform us that the report is ready to be debated and that is by the plenary, so be it. Fine. Over to you, Jordan.
I'll leave it to our rapporteur to confirm exactly where we stand, but I did want to clarify that we are not a position where the Plenary spoke and told us to try again. We ran out of time before the Plenary could consider the report before them (without Jorge's suggestion), which could have resulted in (a) accepting the report as is, (b) sending the report back to the subgroup to try again, or (c) a Plenary decision to revise the report in some fashion. I think it's relevant that Jorge's suggested text was sent to the Plenary list and not to the Subgroup. and that the Plenary was asked to consider it. So, it seems to me that Thomas's summary of where things stand does not quite capture it correctly -- it would be more accurate to say that "last minute changes were submitted to the Plenary which were controversial to members of the Subgroup." (Obviously, not controversial to *all* members of the Subgroup.) Procedurally, that may well dictate that this should stay at the Plenary level. The procedural ping-pong in the Plenary doesn't leave it clear where CCWG and Subgroup leadership think it should be (with Thomas seeming to bounce this back to the Subgroup and Niels stating that it would be better dealt with in the Plenary, with the end result only that it will be on the agenda of the next Plenary). Pragmatically, the Plenary discussion will probably be better served if the Subgroup hashes this out one more time, even if that's not procedurally correct. If there is a proposal that would eliminate the need for the current dissent, without losing significant support from those in the current consensus, that would be great. If there is no such proposal, then, as Thomas said, "so be it." Greg On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- ACCT call yesterday referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures in the subgroup?
It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion. Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached to a proposed recommendation.
This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level.
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
Dear all, We have reached a consensus in our subgroup on our report to the plenary, with a minority opinion. I would prefer if we could come to a full consensus, without a minority opinion, but currently I do not see how to achieve that, but I also do not want to stop searching for it. If the subgroup believes there is space to find a consensus position between the 'more Ruggie' and the 'no more Ruggie' camp I would be more than willing to facilitate it. Such a full consensus position would most probably look like: a little bit more Ruggie. If this is something we would like to further seek out, I am more than happy to help setup calls, drafting teams, or anything else that might make a full consensus possible. If we do not think we can come to such a solution, we will need to continue discussion it in the plenary. I am very curious to hear your ideas and suggestions. Best, Niels On 10/01/2017 09:40 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All.
I don't think we have "a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level." I've gone back to the Transcript and notes to confirm my recollection.
It's clear that the Ombudsman group is in that situation. It was pretty clear that an aspect of their report was not getting sufficient support from the Plenary to move beyond it. So they were told to go back and try again.
That is not where we stand. There was no Plenary decision at all. Nor was there a "knotty issue" brought to the plenary (although one could say that any issue that inspires a "dissent" is somewhat knotty). There was a request that the Plenary consider resolving an issue differently from the way that the Subgroup did.
Here's the relevant portion of the transcript (slightly cleaned up by listening to the recording):
THOMAS RICKERT: Okay. Thanks very much. Now, it appears like the, which our sub team has submitted a report and that there were some last-minute changes which were controversial in the sub team itself. I think that given this controversy the sub team needs to take this back and discuss this, so that we get a report to the plenary which has the status of being confirmed by the sub team. I think it was interesting though to get some views but I guess it clearly shows that the plenary doesn't have sufficient information to take a decision today.
We have one minute left in this call. So I'm afraid that we need to end this discussion for today. There will be another plenary on the 11th. And let me now hand over to my fellow co chair Jordan for closing remarks and adjournment.
JORDAN CARTER: Thanks Thomas. Niels is that you?
NIELS TEN OEVER: I’m sorry, Thomas, I have to ask can we please schedule this for next plenary and not just point this back to the subgroup. I think in the subgroup we have managed to come to a consensus with the minority statement. I think if we want to get rid of the minority statement I think we would do it, have a discussion in the plenary not point it back to the subgroup because I think in the subgroup I'm not sure how much we can move it and we would really like to have more time to discuss this in the plenary if possible.
JORDAN CARTER: We will definitely have this topic on the agenda for the next plenary.
Thomas, do you want to add anything more to that?
THOMAS RICKERT: No I just wanted to confirm we’re going to discuss it at the next meeting and if you as rapporteur inform us that the report is ready to be debated and that is by the plenary, so be it. Fine. Over to you, Jordan.
I'll leave it to our rapporteur to confirm exactly where we stand, but I did want to clarify that we are not a position where the Plenary spoke and told us to try again. We ran out of time before the Plenary could consider the report before them (without Jorge's suggestion), which could have resulted in (a) accepting the report as is, (b) sending the report back to the subgroup to try again, or (c) a Plenary decision to revise the report in some fashion.
I think it's relevant that Jorge's suggested text was sent to the Plenary list and not to the Subgroup. and that the Plenary was asked to consider it. So, it seems to me that Thomas's summary of where things stand does not quite capture it correctly -- it would be more accurate to say that "last minute changes were submitted to the Plenary which were controversial to members of the Subgroup." (Obviously, not controversial to _all_ members of the Subgroup.)
Procedurally, that may well dictate that this should stay at the Plenary level. The procedural ping-pong in the Plenary doesn't leave it clear where CCWG and Subgroup leadership think it should be (with Thomas seeming to bounce this back to the Subgroup and Niels stating that it would be better dealt with in the Plenary, with the end result only that it will be on the agenda of the next Plenary).
Pragmatically, the Plenary discussion will probably be better served if the Subgroup hashes this out one more time, even if that's not procedurally correct. If there is a proposal that would eliminate the need for the current dissent, without losing significant support from those in the current consensus, that would be great. If there is no such proposal, then, as Thomas said, "so be it."
Greg
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote:
Hi,
On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: > So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG- > ACCT call yesterday referring to when they objected to the "compromise text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the usual procedures in the subgroup?
It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion. Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached to a proposed recommendation.
This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level.
avri
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-hr mailing list Ws2-hr@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
Niels ten Oever