RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making Levels

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

I've been giving this some thought (which unfortunately I kept to myself).  
There are really 2 problems here.

1.  Dealing with the "consensus against" problem.  This is our explicit 
assignment.
2.  The Decision-Making Levels are not well-drafted in certain places.  There 
is inconsistent use of language (different words used to mean the same thing), 
inconsistent use of "unstated phrases" (leaving out the same or similar phrase 
when reiterating a point) creating ambiguity, etc.

We are trying to solve both problems at the same time.  We started down this 
road because the fix needs to change all of the levels (except perhaps 
Divergence).  Then, slowly (as we became more comfortable with the document), 
we started to see the list's infirmities and tried to resolve them.  In my day 
job, I call this "drafting creep."  The problem with drafting creep is that it 
opens up issues beyond the one you were fixing, and intertwines those two sets 
of issues in a way that complicates review by others.  This is what Marika is 
seeing.

I think we need to reverse course for the moment.  I think both (1) and (2) 
above are problems that need to be addressed.  But only (1) is really on our 
plate.

 I'll make the moderately radical suggestion that we keep our hands off the 
current levels (in spite of their issues) and address the "consensus against" 
issue (which does affect all the levels) in a footnote (Amr's alternative 3, 
below).

At some later time, we can then follow up and improve the drafting of the 
levels, separate from dealing with the "consensus against" issue.

Just my thoughts.  I can try to draft a footnote today, but it's a bit of a 
messy day (3 ICANN/IG calls plus that "day job"), so I'm not sure if I can.

Greg Shatan

Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 7:40 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] GNSO WG Definitions of Decision-Making 
Levels


Thanks for the feedback, Marika. I’d be grateful if you pointed out the 
specifics in the document on today’s call. I have to admit, I’ve been 
struggling with it. I’m no lawyer…, that’s for sure. :)

In any case, the sub-team’s intent has always been to address revisions to take 
into consideration when consensus against WG recommendations is the situation, 
as divergence does not reflect this situation (as was the case with the 
IGO/INGO WG). That’s probably why the definition of divergence is the only one 
that hasn’t really been substantively changed. The focus has been on the rest 
so far.

Still…, we do have the three ways to move forward that Ron had previously 
suggested:

1. Recommend changes in the definitions to the GNSO Council when the SCI 
finalises them.
2. To not recommend any changes at this time, and postpone changes to see if 
they indeed become necessary in the future (although there have been some 
recommendations not to do this).
3. The third option is to not change the definitions, but instead to add a 
footnote to them indicating that the decision-making levels could be used when 
consensus is for or against WG recommendations.

Thanks again, Marika.

Amr

On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Apologies for having missed the F2F meeting in Singapore, but how do
> these changes address the specific question that was put forward by
> the GNSO Council on behalf of the IGO/INGO PDP WG: 'and specifically
> requests the SCI to review and, if deemed appropriate, recommend
> revised or additional language to apply to situations where working
> groups may reach sufficient consensus against a particular proposal
> such that the appropriate consensus level cannot accurately be
> described as No Consensus/Divergence'? The additions / edits may be
> helpful clarifications but they seem to go beyond the scope of the
> specific question put forward to the SCI. But maybe I am missing
> something, so I am looking forward to discussing this further on the call 
> later today.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 08/04/14 13:12, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I¹ve taken a stab at some very slight word-smithing on the last draft
>> of the WG consensus levels discussed at our F2F in Singapore. I¹ve
>> tried to capture the comments made, and a little more and look
>> forward to a discussion on this during today¹s call.
>>
>> I have admittedly done this only today, so have not had time to
>> consult with the rest of the sub-team. Greg, Thomas, CintraŠ, my apologies.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>
> <default.xml>




                                                                * * *

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