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

[Justine Chew <justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Amr,

Many thanks for clarifying your earlier email. I too have concerns with a
report (albeit an initial one) which contains two sets of conflicting
recommendations, and would be happy if the WG could reach full consensus on
our recommendations. However, given the way the discussions have taken
place in weeks past, this might prove a difficult goal if more time were
unavailable to us. I would be pleased to be proven wrong though!

Hence, as Chris has stated in his email, the approach proposed for taking
the strawman draft forward is to set out the arguments both for and against
mandatory transformation but to conclude with one set of recommendations
either for or against, which was the approach the WG members present at
last week's call were asked to vote on.

As Chris has also said, it has yet to be decided which set of
recommendations will prevail for the purposes of the initial report. I
imagine presentation of opposing arguments would have to be reworked
somewhat within a later draft in order for the consensus or majority view
(as the case may be) to be properly reflected.

Dear Chris,

Thank you for confirming the correctness of my understanding in respect of
the vote being taken, and I am pleased to say that I haven't changed my
mind on my vote.

Just another query - will you be circulating another version 5 or are we
meant to keep looking at the version 5 from last week's call?

Thanks and regards,

Justine Chew
-----

On 25 November 2014 at 22:26, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Dear Amr,
>
>
>
> I just realised I forget to write that I’ll put your name in the report.
>
>
>
> Sorry it was omitted.
>
>
>
> 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 12:57
>
> *To:* gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
>
>
>