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

["Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lars,<div><br /></div><div>Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to 
deal with this without losing more time.</div><div><br 
/></div><div>Best,</div><div>Petter ("the bad guy")<br /><br />-- <br />Petter 
Rindforth, LL M
<br />
<br />Fenix Legal KB
<br />Stureplan 4c, 4tr
<br />114 35 Stockholm
<br />Sweden
<br />Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
<br />Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
<br />E-mail: petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<br />www.fenixlegal.eu
<br />
<br />
<br />NOTICE
<br />This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals 
to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged 
information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any 
of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by 
return e-mail.
<br />Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
<br />Thank you<br /><br /><p>1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr 
&lt;aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt; skrev:</p><blockquote type="cite"><div 
class="oneComWebmail-html oneComWebmail-mail"><div style="" 
class="oneComWebmail-body"><div>Hi,</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br 
/></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br /></div><div>Amr</div><br /><div><div>On Sep 
30, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Lars Hoffmann &lt;<a 
href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-interchange-newline" /><blockquote><div 
style="font-size: 14px;"><div>Dear all,</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Very 
best,</div><div>Lars</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br 
/></div><div><br /></div><span id="oneComWebmail-OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div 
style="font-size: 11pt; text-align: left; border-width: 1pt medium medium; 
border-style: solid none none; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; border-top-color: rgb(181, 
196, 223);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">From: </span> Emily Taylor &lt;<a 
href="mailto:emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br /><span 
style="font-weight: bold;">Date: </span> Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42<br 
/><span style="font-weight: bold;">To: </span> Amr Elsadr &lt;<a 
href="mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br /><span style="font-weight: 
bold;">Cc: </span> Lars HOFFMANN &lt;<a href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;, "<a 
href="mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>" &lt;<a 
href="mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;, "Dillon, Chris" &lt;<a 
href="mailto:c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx"; target="_blank">c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;, 
"<a href="mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx</a>" &lt;<a 
href="mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br /><span 
style="font-weight: bold;">Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Draft 
Initial Report attached<br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div dir="ltr">Hi 
there
<div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Best</div><div><br />
Emily</div></div><div class="oneComWebmail-gmail_extra"><br /><div 
class="oneComWebmail-gmail_quote">On 30 September 2014 17:52, Amr Elsadr <span 
dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br /><blockquote 
class="oneComWebmail-gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px 
#ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div>Hi,</div><div><br 
/></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some more comments in line 
below:</div><br /><div><span class=""><div>On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Lars 
Hoffmann &lt;<a href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx"; 
target="_blank">lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br 
/><blockquote><div style="font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: 
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; 
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 
0px;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span 
lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Hi Amr, Emily, 
all<u></u><u></u></font></span></div><p class="oneComWebmail-MsoNormal" 
style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><font 
size="3"> </font></span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 
11pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">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.<u></u><u></u></font></span></div><p 
class="oneComWebmail-MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 
11pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><div style="margin: 
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3">Just a 
quick note clarifying my ‘roadmap’ from my original email and also addressing 
the important points that have been raised.<u></u><u></u></font></span></div><p 
class="oneComWebmail-MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 
11pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"> </font></span></p><div style="margin: 
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><font size="3"><font 
face="Calibri,sans-serif">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 </font>Thursday'<font 
face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.</font></font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br 
/></div></span><div>Thanks. That sounds great.</div><span class=""><br 
/><blockquote><div style="font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: 
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; 
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 
0px;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span 
lang="EN-US"><font size="3"><font 
face="Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></font></font></span></div><div 
style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;">
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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br 
/></div></span><div>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 (<a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois"; 
target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois</a>).</div><span
 class=""><br /><blockquote><div style="font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; 
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 
normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; 
word-spacing: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;">
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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div></span><div>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.</div><span class=""><br /><blockquote><div 
style="font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; 
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div 
style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;">
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.</div></div></blockquote><div><br 
/></div></span><div>Thanks again to the drafters, and thanks to you, Lars, for 
your willingness to accommodate our shifting requests. :)</div><span 
class="oneComWebmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br 
/></div><div>Amr</div></font></span></div><br /><div><br 
/></div></div></blockquote></div><br /><br clear="all" /><div><br /></div>
-- <br /><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: small; font-family: arial; 
font-weight: bold; margin: 0px;"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Emily 
Taylor</font></div><p style="font-size: small; font-family: arial; margin-top: 
0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><i 
style="">MA(Cantab), MBA</i><br /><font 
color="#38761d">Director</font></font></p><p style="font-size: small; 
margin-bottom: 60px;"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b 
style="font-family: arial;">Netistrar Limited</b><br /><font 
style="font-family: arial;">661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire DD11 
0DL </font><font color="#38761d" style="font-family: arial;">| T:</font><font 
style="font-family: arial;"> +44 1865 582811 </font><font color="#38761d" 
style="font-family: arial;">|
 M:</font><font style="font-family: arial;"> +44 7540 049322</font><br /><font 
color="#38761d" style="font-family: arial;">E:</font><font style="font-family: 
arial;"> </font><a href="mailto:emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; style="color: 
rgb(17,85,204); font-family: arial;" 
target="_blank">emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><font style="font-family: 
arial;"> </font><font color="#38761d" style="font-family: arial;">|
 W:</font><font style="font-family: arial;"> <a 
href="http://www.netistrar.com/"; 
target="_blank">www.netistrar.com</a></font></font></p><p style="font-size: 
small; margin-bottom: 60px;"><img 
data-src="http://www.netistrar.com/wp-content/themes/carfax-child/assets/img/Netistrar_Domain_Name_Registrar.gif";
 width="200" height="50" style="color: rgb(170,170,170);" /></p><p 
style="font-size: small; margin-bottom: 60px;"><span style="color: rgb(170, 
170, 170);">Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, 
Derbyshire DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583.
 VAT No. 190062332</span></p></div></div></div></div></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br /><span 
id="externalImagesFiltered"></span></div></div></blockquote></div>