RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 30 Oct 2013

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All:

I agree.  I think we misrepresent our conclusion as a group if we call 
“consensus against” divergence.  We should be sucked into a bureaucratic 
fetishization of the vocabulary of consensus to the detriment of communication 
of actual facts.  Language needs to be the slave to communication, not the 
other way around.

I suggest that we have the following options:

1. Remove the unsupported recommendations altogether, since they are not in 
fact “recommendations” of the WG.  They should be considered discarded 
recommendations.  (At one point, we had a list of such things, but it seems to 
have disappeared along the way.)

2.  Change the consensus level to “Minority View,” which is defined as “a 
proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation.”  This 
would appear to be an accurate characterization (although it is perhaps still 
not accurate to call it a “recommendation” at all).  This may open up a “can of 
worms” in that other “minority views” should then also be included in the 
table, which then becomes a hodgepodge of both supported recommendations and 
unsupported (failed) “recommendations.”  The levels of consensus imply that 
this position is generally be taken in response to a consensus level of 
Divergence or above, or as a position taken by a small group where there is 
neither support nor opposition by the remainder of the group.  It is not clear 
whether these are the exclusive situations in which Minority View can be 
stated, or are merely examples of possible scenarios.

3.  Have the majority of groups/WG members (that together make up the 
“consensus against”) submit a series of “minority views” or perhaps a single 
“majority view.”  I think this is absurd make-work, and will certainly slow 
down the process toward finalization.

4.  Drop a footnote for each of these false “divergences” to the following 
effect:

“In fact, the consensus position of the Working Group was “Consensus Against” 
this particular recommendation.  However, the approved levels of consensus for 
PDP Working Groups does not include “Consensus Against,” so the Working Group 
felt that it was not able to formally state that the position of the Working 
Group was “Consensus Against.”  Because the inverse of this recommendation was 
not formally submitted for a consensus call, the Working Group felt that it 
could not, as a matter of procedure, state the proposition in the negative, and 
then state that the position of the Working Group was “Consensus” for the 
negative of the recommendation set forth above.  In Working Groups with fewer 
recommendations than those before this Group, it is highly likely that this 
situation can be avoided altogether.  However, due to the number of 
recommendations being considered by the Group, the Group adopted a “matrix” 
approach to setting forth the recommendations under consideration.  It would 
have been unwieldy and confusing to set forth the negative of each 
recommendation in the matrix merely to guard against the possibility of a 
“Consensus Against” result.  Therefore, the Group finds itself with a “Hobson’s 
Choice” between showing the level of consensus as “consensus against” (which 
does not appear to be formally available as a consensus level) and showing the 
level of consensus as “Divergence” (which mischaracterizes the position of the 
group).  As  the Group did not feel it had the authority to take the first 
choice, it has ended up by default with the consensus level of “Divergence.”  
The Working Group instructs the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to consider 
this recommendation to be not supported by the Working Group, in spite of this 
formal statement of “Divergence” which the Group felt constrained to use.  The 
Working Group further recommends that (a) the “Consensus Vocabulary” be 
expanded to include “Consensus Against” and (b) unless and until that occurs, 
future Working Groups put safeguards in place in their consensus process to 
avoid this unfortunate result.”

I do not think that leaving these as “Divergence” without further explanation 
is appropriate or acceptable.  Not only does it fail to represent the will of 
the group, it distorts the meaning of the word “Divergence” and insults the 
concept and position of true “Divergence,” where there is not strong support 
for the particular recommendation or its inverse, but just a bunch of “minority 
views” without a consensus against which to be a minority.

I look forward to discussing this on today’s call.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan


Gregory S. Shatan
Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group
IP | Technology | Media
ReedSmithLLP
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 | Phone
917.816.6428 | Mobile
212.521.5450 | Fax
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:53 AM
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 30 Oct 2013

Dear colleagues,

We would just like to state for the record we strongly oppose the use of 
“Divergence” regarding our WG position as to whether acronyms should be blocked 
for any international organization.

The definition simply does not suit when there is consensus against the 
position of blocking acronyms.  (A consensus which appears to be shared in the 
public comments.)


  *   Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there 
isn't strong support for any particular position, but many (two or more) 
different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences 
of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly 
strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is 
worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.**

We are deeply concerned that this mischaracterization will be misleading to the 
those reading the Report, including the GNSO Council and ICANN.

If we cannot change the wording of the recommendation, then we do not see the 
scope for including a recommendation which received only minority support.

We should not parse our words when making such important recommendations.

Sincerely,
Claudia (ISO)

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: 2013-10-30 06:33
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 30 Oct 2013

WG Members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday’s meeting.  Attached is the 
latest version of the draft Final Report.  In this version you will see several 
comments where I noted for review and action for the WG to consider.  It also 
includes an update to current recommendations noting where “no support” was 
submitted as per our last consensus call.  A new Annex was also added that 
contains a first draft template for requesting an Issue Report for a possible 
PDP where one of the WG’s recommendations for UDRP/URS be considered.

Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – 30 OCTOBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI’s
2.       Chair’s update
3.       Review Public Comments RT
4.       Review draft Final Report
5.       Confirm next meeting, 06 November 2013 @ 16:00 UTC

Speak with you soon.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb






* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00