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

["Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Justine,

Thank you for your email.

Sometime after 14:00 UTC on Thursday there will be a new version. It will not 
be version 5; possibly version 6. That will include updates to arguments 
attempting to reflect our recent discussions. The number of sets of options 
will reflect the straw poll.

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<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>

From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25 November 2014 15:23
To: Dillon, Chris
Cc: Amr Elsadr; gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Straw poll on number of options

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<mailto: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<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> 
(int 31599) 
www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>

From: 
owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
 
[mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> 
(int 
31599)www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>

From: 
owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B44%2020%207679%201599> 
(int 
31599)www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon>