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

[Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Thank you every one for the report and thanks Lar for the good suggestion.
Looking forward to discussing the initial report in the next call.

Best regards,

Pitinan

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:19 AM, "Petter Rindforth" 
<petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Lars,

Very good suggestion, that seems the best way to deal with this without losing 
more time.

Best,
Petter ("the bad guy")

--
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>


NOTICE
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.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
Thank you


1 oktober 2014, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 
skrev:

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<mailto: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<mailto:emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:emily.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> | W: 
www.netistrar.com<http://www.netistrar.com/>

[cid:]

Registered office: Netistrar Limited, 661 Burton Road, Swadlincote, Derbyshire 
DE11 0DL UK. Registered in England and Wales No. 08735583. VAT No. 190062332