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

["Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

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<mailto:becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> / www.neustar.biz

From: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Tim Ruiz 
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Mike O'Connor 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter

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<mailto: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<mailto:becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Mike O'Connor 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
yep, i can see the value in that.

m

On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 3/1/14 10:04 am
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "Mary 
Wong" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 9:29 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:35 PM
To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)



PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)