Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My view is that consensus in the two SOs is the same.  I see no difference 
between "would you drive into a ditch over it" and "a small minority disagree." 
 Let's just call it consensus and be done with it.

As for full consensus, it is icing on the cake.  We can accommodate it as 
unanimity but it should not be the goal.

Berard

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 3, 2014, at 10:58 AM, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> We are not drafting a policy recommendation, rather we are looking at process 
> and scope issues and coming up with recommendations to take back to the SOs 
> and ACs.  I’ll concede if everyone thinks I’m wrong, but I would prefer to 
> proceed with a goal of achieving "no one is going to die in a ditch" 
> consensus and to report on minority views, if any, both with respective to 
> the substance of those views and the extent to which members of the working 
> group align themselves with the minority views.  But if we can’t get real 
> consensus here, it doesn’t bode well for the actual follow-on processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> / www.neustar.biz
> 
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
> 
> This is why I like the definition of consensus in the GNSO WG guidelines:  “a 
> position where a small minority disagree but most agree”.  It is good to work 
> for full consensus, but it may not be achievable.
>  
> Chuck
>  
>  
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:18 AM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
>  
> Not following very closely, so forgive me if this is already covered. The 
> problem with the vote will be if there is favor for one view by a very small 
> margin, perhaps even a single vote. It is likely since the reason voting may 
> used in the first place is due to a close deadlock. So I would hope that the 
> charter would define a reasonable margin for passing as I would hate to think 
> significant new policy would be passed when 49.9% of the stakeholders are not 
> in favor.
>  
> For example, in the USA we may elect officials on very small margins, but 
> laws and policy require 60% or more of the legislators involved to be in 
> favor pass.
>  
> Tim
>  
> 
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:59 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> yep, i can see the value in that.  
>  
> m
>  
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Mikey,
>  
> I lean toward having the membership limits and voting rules in the charter.  
> Striving for full consensus is a good goal but it is not always achievable.  
> Having the limits and rules in the charter provides a ready means to use them 
> if needed but they don’t have to be used if not needed.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:21 PM
> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
>  
> wow.  the combination of colors and capitalization make this a little 
> hair-raising to read — kinda reminds me of a web page circa 1995 when the 
> author discovered color and flashing fonts.  i’d like to gently lobby for 
> doing markup in the Word document.  it would be easier for me to follow, and 
> probably a lot easier for Mary to turn around a new draft.  sorry to be such 
> a grouch on a beautiful sub-zero (Fahrenheit) Sunday.  :-)
>  
> the care and precision of this work is great — there were a few times where 
> it was extremely helpful having this kind of charter rigor during the DSSA.
>  
> it seems like there’s general convergence here and i don’t feel strongly 
> enough about this next point to derail the conversation over it.  but here 
> goes…
>  
> if we’re aiming the working group at working by full/unanimous consensus 
> anyway, do we really care a lot about membership limits, voting rules and the 
> like?  if the WG gets down to a place where a deadlock needs to be broken by 
> voting, and only official people can vote, aren’t we instead looking at an 
> issue that’s in need of more refinement by the WG?  i’m not happy with the 
> way i’m saying this, it’s not very clear.  but it seems like the “full 
> consensus” direction reduces the need for some of that membership-strata 
> detail.
>  
> not a big point, i certainly won’t battle it.  :-)
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
>  
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:16 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I have added my comments IN ALL CAPS.
> Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this.  Here is my 
> feedback.
> Is there a reason why we refer to ‘(Co-)Chairs’ throughout the charter.  Why 
> not call them ‘Co-Chairs’?  I agree/AS DO I
> Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the Members 
> of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote?  It might be good 
> to clarify this.  In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their SO or AC, 
> then they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their co-chair hast 
> when doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their voices when 
> voting occurs.  On the other hand, if the co-chairs are expected to serve 
> specifically in a completely neutral capacity, then they would not need to 
> vote; in such a case though, I don’t think they should be included in the 
> Minimum and Maximum Member numbers.  I think it would be helpful to clarify 
> these issues in the charter.  Yes the co-chairs will be selected from the 
> members and by the members/AGREED
> I assume that they would be allowed to vote/YES
> although the question itself reflects an interesting difference in approach 
> between the ccnso and the gnso/DON’T WANT TO FOCUS ON THOSE PESKY DIFFERENCE 
> AT THE OUTSET  
> Our task is to come up with a set of recommendations regarding process and 
> appropriate topics for cross constituency work – which necessarily precedes 
> (AND ACCOMMODATES?) policy development under both the GNSO and ccNSO rules.   
>  
> Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like 
> Members? If so, the following statement is fine: “Each of the participating 
> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own 
> rules and procedures.” If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without 
> being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to 
> “Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in 
> accordance with their own rules and procedures.”  If we say “in accordance 
> with their own rules and procedures” then doesn’t that permit the respective 
> SOs and ACs to choose whether they want to appoint specific observers or 
> whether they want to let anyone who is interested participate as an observer? 
>  I am guessing that the ccNSO approach will be anyone who volunteers is 
> welcome.  But I’m not sure how the other SOs and ACs like to handle this/FOR 
> THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORKING GROUP, WE WANT PARTICIPANTS TO BE OFFICIAL SO 
> THAT THE FINDINGS WILL CARRY SOME WEIGHT.  WITH AT LEAST SOMEONE IN THAT 
> OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SELF-NOMINATED OBSERVERS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED
>  
> Regarding SOIs the charter says: “Participants from SOs or ACs for which a 
> Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an 
> SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).”  This 
> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn’t 
> require one.  I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I 
> assume that that is what is intended.  Here’s some possible rewording to make 
> it clear:  “All Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for 
> participation in the WG.  Participants from SOs or ACs for which a Statement 
> of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an SOI in 
> accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others shall 
> submit an SOI that provides comparable information according to the rules of 
> one of the SO/ACs for which SOIs are required.”  I’m ok with that 
> approach/AGREED; AN SOI IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE WORKING 
> GROUP.
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter
> From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 3/1/14 10:04 am
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> See my responses.  In blue
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
> Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> / www.neustar.biz
>  
> From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 9:29 AM
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter
>  
> Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this.  Here is my 
> feedback.
>  
> Is there a reason why we refer to ‘(Co-)Chairs’ throughout the charter.  Why 
> not call them ‘Co-Chairs’?  I agree
>  
> Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the Members 
> of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote?  It might be good 
> to clarify this.  In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their SO or AC, 
> then they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their co-chair hast 
> when doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their voices when 
> voting occurs.  On the other hand, if the co-chairs are expected to serve 
> specifically in a completely neutral capacity, then they would not need to 
> vote; in such a case though, I don’t think they should be included in the 
> Minimum and Maximum Member numbers.  I think it would be helpful to clarify 
> these issues in the charter.  Yes the co-chairs will be selected from the 
> members and by the members.  I assume that they would be allowed to vote, 
> although the question itself reflects an interesting difference in approach 
> between the ccnso and the gnso.  Our task is to come up with a set of 
> recommendations regarding process and appropriate topics for cross 
> constituency work – which necessarily precedes policy development under both 
> the GNSO and ccNSO rules.   
>  
> Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like 
> Members? If so, the following statement is fine: “Each of the participating 
> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their own 
> rules and procedures.” If not (i.e., if Observers may participate without 
> being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be changed to 
> “Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to the WG in 
> accordance with their own rules and procedures.”  If we say “in accordance 
> with their own rules and procedures” then doesn’t that permit the respective 
> SOs and ACs to choose whether they want to appoint specific observers or 
> whether they want to let anyone who is interested participate as an observer? 
>  I am guessing that the ccNSO approach will be anyone who volunteers is 
> welcome.  But I’m not sure how the other SOs and ACs like to handle this.
>  
> Regarding SOIs the charter says: “Participants from SOs or ACs for which a 
> Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an 
> SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).”  This 
> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn’t 
> require one.  I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I 
> assume that that is what is intended.  Here’s some possible rewording to make 
> it clear:  “All Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for 
> participation in the WG.  Participants from SOs or ACs for which a Statement 
> of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an SOI in 
> accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others shall 
> submit an SOI that provides comparable information according to the rules of 
> one of the SO/ACs for which SOIs are required.”  I’m ok with that approach.  
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:35 PM
> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] For your review: revised draft charter
>  
> Dear DT members,
>  
> Please find attached the draft charter, revised following the call yesterday 
> and as reviewed by the Co-Chairs, in both CLEAN and REDLINED versions. Once 
> we are able to confirm a date and time for the next DT meeting, I will send 
> you the information about that as well. As such, please take a moment to fill 
> out the Doodle poll at your earliest convenience: 
> http://doodle.com/4zur3s2auax8ivr8
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>  
> * One World. One Internet. *
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>