Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft Initial Report attached

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Sounds good to me. I would recommend that, to avoid confusion, the standard 
decision-making thresholds detailed in the GNSO working group guidelines be 
used.

Thanks.

Amr

On Sep 30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 Thursday’s 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 group’s 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 “Current state of discussion”. 
>> Although this section is not technically inaccurate, it is only because a 
>> consensus call on the sets of recommendations hasn’t 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 ‘roadmap’ 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 “thick” 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 group’s 
>>> deliberations to date, such that the WG and its co–Chairs 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 “thick” WHOIS PDP WG referred to above.
>> 
>>> In any case, the Draft Initial Report is an amalgamation of Chris’ straw 
>>> man and Petter’s 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 Thursday’s 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
> 
> 
> 
> Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, 
> Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 
> 190062332
>