Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris,

I apologize about missing last week’s call, but thank you very much for 
bringing this discussion to the list. I would like to note that from a GNSO 
process perspective, having two conflicting sets of recommendations (even in 
the preliminary report) in response to the charter questions of this PDP will 
be extremely problematic. gTLD policy recommendation development in the GNSO is 
supposed to take place in GNSO working groups, where achieving consensus is the 
goal. Here, we are in the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process. 
To have these two sets of recommendations would (at least to me) seem like an 
indication that this PDP working group has failed in carrying out its mandate, 
and is attempting to shift the decision of a single set of recommendations 
elsewhere; probably the GNSO council. The GNSO council is not meant to make 
these decisions.

In my humble opinion, I believe we should spend the time we have left to us 
trying to reach a compromise that would achieve full consensus among the 
working group members. If that proves impossible, we should try to provide 
recommendations with a consensus level consistent with one of the 
decision-making designations provided in section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group 
Guidelines (Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures found here: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13nov14-en.pdf).

I still hope that the working group members can reach full consensus. This 
would mean that compromises would need to be made. We really should focus on 
achieving this over the next few weeks.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>  
> During Thursday's call, we had a straw poll:
> Are you in favor of having only one option in the initial report?
> As you know, in the versions of the draft initial report until now there have 
> been two options (recommendations for and against mandatory transformation), 
> but if it is possible to have only one, the report will likely have a 
> stronger effect. Whatever the result of the report, the arguments for and 
> against will remain in it; this poll only concerns the options.
> Please send your vote to the list if you did not vote on Thursday. The 
> options are:Yes, No and Abstain.
> Please vote by 14:00 UTC on Thursday 27 November. (Note that there is no 
> meeting on that day; the next one is 4 December.)
>  
> In summary
> - This is not a consensus call on the options.
> - This is to decide whether the initial report should have one set of 
> recommendations or two sets of recommendations.
> - If a majority believes it should be only one set, the WG, at a later stage 
> (probably during our next meeting, on 4 December) will decide which set it 
> will be.
> - Please bear in mind that this is the initial report and following public 
> comments on it we will be able to modify/amend/change/reverse our draft 
> recommendations.
>  
> Incidentally, I shall email soon asking for your comments on version 5 of the 
> report and including the rest of mine.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Chris.
> --
> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, 
> UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 
> 31599)www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon