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

["Alberto Soto" <asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the last review consensus, because we can not change policies. 

Also I agree with Mike on modifications with comments on a word document,
for a better view and better monitoring. 

Best Regards

 

Alberto Soto

 

De: owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Gomes, Chuck
Enviado el: lunes, 03 de marzo de 2014 02:04 p.m.
Para: Burr, Becky; John Berard
CC: Tim Ruiz; Mike O'Connor; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: RE: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter

 

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