Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached
Dear all, If I may chip in one more time. If there remains doubt about whether or not to make a consensus call for the Initial Report (and this does not have to be decided until after LA), one option could be to take a feel of the room and see who would support which set of recommendations. Based on that the Group could then add to the Initial Report that a small/large majority supports this recommendation and a small/large minority supports this other set. Maybe something else to discuss on Thursday¹s call. Very best, Lars From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>, "petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached Hi there I'd like to echo Amr's thanks to Chris, Lars and the team. I would also welcome some level of information about the consensus level at this stage. It would be helpful to those commenting (as Amr has pointed out). I think it would also help us as a working group to try to articulate and understand the range of opinions within the group. Best Emily On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the work on the document, Lars, Chris and everyone involved in > bringing it together. I still feel that a consensus level should be determined > on each set of alternative recommendations, and included in the draft report. > Part of reporting a working group¹s progress at this stage should be reporting > to the public where the WG participants stand. So again, I ask that we > determine these consensus levels and replace the findings with the observation > made on page 14 under ³Current state of discussion². Although this section is > not technically inaccurate, it is only because a consensus call on the sets of > recommendations hasn¹t been requested by the WG chairs. That could be > remedied. > > Some more comments in line below: > > On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Amr, Emily, all >> >> Thank your for your thoughts! And before I respond, please let me point out >> that I have attached a first version of the Draft Initial Report. >> >> Just a quick note clarifying my roadmap¹ from my original email and also >> addressing the important points that have been raised. >> >> Please note that this is a draft Initial Report. As such it is not yet ready >> to go for public comment and it is not intended to go out before (nor during) >> ICANN 51. The document is produced now so that WG members have a substantial >> draft to present and discuss in LA. The Group will continue discussing the >> draft on Thursday's call and in LA during its face-to-face meeting. >> Potentially, further feedback from the community might come forward and feed >> into further amendments following LA. Only then would it the Initial Report >> be put out for public comment. > > Thanks. That sounds great. > >> Because the Group is faced with a binary question, the idea was to provide >> clearly to the community both sides of the argument that have been discussed >> (for an against mandatory transformation) and also provide the two logical >> recommendations that flow from these different sides of the arguments: >> mandatory transformation; no mandatory transformation. This would be done to >> help encourage community feedback during the public comment period that >> follows the finalized Initial Report post ICANN51. > > Presenting the pros and cons of policy findings in a WG report does not > preclude defining a current consensus level. This was done, for example, with > the initial and final reports of the ³thick² WHOIS PDP WG > (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois). > >> Also, the PDP Manual does not prescribe a mandatory formal consensus level >> call be conducted for an Initial Report - though it is of course an option. >> This is to allow for differences among WGs depending on each group¹s >> deliberations to date, such that the WG and its coChairs could decide not to >> determine consensus level at this stage, including on the basis that >> community feedback is important for informing the Final Report and the formal >> Consensus Call that will need to be done. In this way, relevant input from >> the public comment period will be assessed and fed into the Final Report that >> will only contain one set of recommendations, to be determined after the >> formal Consensus Call takes place. At that point, Minority Statement(s), if >> needed, can still be produced and attached to the Final Report. You may be >> interested to know that this approach was also recently followed for the >> IRTP-D and IGO-INGO PDP WGs. > > True. A consensus level at this stage is not required and only a tentative > one, which may change following the public comment period. Still, it is > informative and helpful to the community on where the WG members stand as a > result of the work that has been done. Like I said, this was included in both > reports of the ³thick² WHOIS PDP WG referred to above. > >> In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris¹ straw man >> and Petter¹s modified version and so maybe a decision on which way to move >> forward could be taken on Thursday when everybody had the chance to read >> though the document? I would be able to amend the document very quickly after >> Thursday¹s call - based on the way forwarded decided by the WG membership. > > Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for your willingness to > accommodate our shifting requests. :) > > Amr > > -- Emily Taylor MA(Cantab), MBA Director Netistrar Limited 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 0DL | T: +44 1865 582811 | M: +44 7540 049322 E: emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | W: www.netistrar.com <http://www.netistrar.com> Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|