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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again,

A point of clarification on my part regarding the consensus levels in the GNSO 
operating procedures; they are not necessary for the initial report. I meant to 
indicate that they are required as part of the final report, but after 
re-reading my note, see that this was presented by me rather poorly. (Thanks 
for the heads up Marika)

To try to be clearer on the other point of multiple recommendations in the 
initial report; if the desire is that this report reflect the lack of consensus 
currently in the working group on the charter questions we are being asked to 
tackle, I think this could be done more effectively than by presenting two 
conflicting recommendations as options, which suggests (to me) that the WG is 
lost in making a determination. As I believe we are closer to one set of 
recommendations than the other (although this is rather subjective speculation 
on my part), I think this should be reflected in the initial report one way or 
the other.

Like I said before, I do hope we can focus on an attempt to reach full 
consensus over the next few weeks.

On another unrelated topic, I noticed that I am not listed as a working group 
member in the report. May I ask to be added? :)

Thanks again.

Amr

On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Amr,
>  
> Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.
>  
> We will be sticking close to the GNSO Operating Procedures. I am not as 
> familiar with them as many colleagues on the calls, you included, but I will 
> listen to advice as we apply them.
>  
> With kind 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
>  
> From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: 25 November 2014 12:09
> To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options
> Importance: High
>  
> 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