[gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Draft Final Report
WG Members, Please find attached two versions of the IGO-INGO draft Final Report. Version 0.6 includes all track changes from the Initial Report, while version 0.7 is a clean version of the report where all track changes are accepted. I made an attempt to reorder the sections of this report to promote the recommendations section to section #3. However, the nested numbering lists were not adjusting as expected and my manual intervention could not easily fix the issue. I will attempt to find the root cause, but I did not want to delay the report any longer. A note from our Chair.... All, first of all, thanks to Berry for stepping in yesterday and chairing the meeting. Well done! I apologize for not having been able to participate during yesterday's meeting at such a crucial point in time, but I was on a business trip that could not be scheduled for another day. There has been a debate also on the recent publication of the list of strings that are published into Specification 5 per the series of NGPC resolutions. I will chime in on that subject later, but let's focus on the finalization of the report now. Thanks to all of you for contributing to our joint aim of getting the report ready for public comment. A special kudos to Chuck is in order for reviewing the report so diligently and thereby improving its quality tremendously. I would like to comment on a few items that have been subject of the recent deliberations: Assessment of Consensus level: Thanks also to all that have spoken out or written e-mails expressing their confidence in my assessment of the consensus level. The consensus level will remain as it is in the present version of the report, unless we get more input prior to the publication of the report for public comment that would require changes to the consensus level. Format of the Recommendations: There have been requests to place some of the recommendations that did not reach consensus level in context with the other recommendations for the respective organization that reached consensus. I have extensively conferred with Berry today regarding the way the recommendations are presented and now asked Berry to accommodate that wish. The group has discussed all recommendations separately. There was the explicit request from many WG members to do that. The reason why we have displayed the recommendations in the previous versions of the report was because there was hope that we could present all recommendations that have reached consensus first and then those that did not reach consensus and that the GNSO Council could then look at them and decide on them as a package. However, this approach has changed since the level of consensus for the various recommendations vary quite a bit. I have reported to you in an earlier call that the GNSO-Council will most likely vote on the recommendations one by one. In the light of this, it does make sense for both for the Council as well as for the community to be presented with all the recommendations in a way that is easier to digest in terms of context. We did not change substance, just the order. Consensus Scale: There has been a discussion on whether the recommendations, or I should better say the consensus level for the individual recommendations, should be called differently and more differentiated to reflect more accurately i.e. the level of divergence. While I do appreciate the desire to be as accurate as possible when presenting the status of our thinking to the community, I think it is not appropriate for us to change the terminology and have hence asked Berry to stick to the original terminology. The reason for that is that you will remember I explained to the group quite thoroughly how consensus is determined. We went through the consensus levels in the WG Guidelines document and all of you have provided input to the consensus call in the light of these terms. Even more: Some may have chosen not to respond because they anticipated that their input would not help certain recommendation to get more than "consensus" or less than "divergence". I am therefore afraid that a last minute change to the consensus levels might let the process appear not having been reliable. Rather, we should stick to the definitions we have used before and those who think that it is necessary to express their views on the support level in greater detail should do so using the public comment forum. This will inform the community as well as the Council and ultimately the ICANN Board. Having listened to the vivid discussion on this subject via the mp3, I do agree with those of you, who stated that the vocabulary of the consensus scale is not adequate to reflect the level of support or the lack thereof. However, I do believe that it would not be appropriate to try to fix this retrospectively. We have now included a footnote in the description of the consensus scale to share the concerns that were expressed with the reader of the report. Apart from that, I will suggest this as a topic to be dealt with by the SCI as a change of the WG Guidelines might be needed. Timing: As all of you know, we are working against a tight time line and I appreciate that you have supported us in making it possible for the outcome of our work to be considered by the GNSO-Council before the Buenos Aires meeting. I trust that you have reserved some time these days to be able to react to the refinements of the report. We will proceed and aim at publishing the report tomorrow, the 20th. While I do hope that all of you are fine with the report in its current format, please note that there are more opportunities for us to make changes to the document (I guess Berry called it that we will get back to the "well"). So please avail yourself of such opportunities to come and allow us to get the report out for public comment, unless you have spotted substantial flaws. Thanks, Thomas Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx @berrycobb Attachment:
IGO-INGO_Final_Report_v0.7.docx Attachment:
IGO-INGO_Final_Report_v0.6.docx
|