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

[John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Chuck!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:03 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> +1
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:31 AM
> To: John Berard
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; Mike O'Connor; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
>  
> +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 
> / www.neustar.biz
>  
> From: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike 
> O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <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> 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.)
>