RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just in case it was not clear, the statement below was made NOT as the chair of 
the PPSC, but rather as a humble registry operator.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff 
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:56 AM
To: 'Avri Doria'; Working Group; gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus

Avri beat me to the punch...wouldn't be the first time :)

Avri is correct that as a registry, we have an issue with respect to PDPs with 
the phrase " This is sometimes just referred to as Rough or Near Consensus" 
inserted into the definition of Consensus.  We are concerned that that addition 
may implicitly lower the threshold required in the ICANN contracts and be read 
by some that "consensus" as defined in the WG-WT report is lower than it should 
be.

We will certainly consider Avri's suggestion below, but as I explained on 
today's PPSC call, this is a very sensitive subject for the contracted parties, 
because unlike any organization I am aware of that may use the terms "rough" or 
"near" consensus, the decisions of the GNSO based on Consensus in a PDP is 
binding on the contracted parties.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:49 AM
To: Working Group
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus


FYI from [gnso-ppsc]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: 12 November 2010 09:41:34 EST
> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc] issue of rough or near consensus
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In anticipation of Jeff's issue concerning the inclusion of the words "rough" 
> and "near" in
> 
>> This is sometimes just referred to as Rough or Near Consensus.
> 
> 
> I think leaving them in is very important since people who are new to the 
> ICANN context do not understand ICANN's usage of consensus to mean something 
> other than unanimity.
> 
> What might be an solution (though I think this would need to be passed by the 
> WT) would be to include a footnote that says something like:
> 
> The terms _Rough or Near Consensus_ are included so that those who are 
> unfamiliar with ICANN usage can associate the definition of _Consensus_ with 
> other definitions and terms of art they may be more familiar with.  It should 
> be noted that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all 
> reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term 
> _Consensus_ as this may have legal implications.
> 
> 
> Note: I am offering this recommendation because I do wish to be accused, as I 
> was in the meeting, of holding up the release of this report by not complying 
> with the Registries position.  In this case at least, I think there is a 
> simple solution that preserves the work yet hopefully can assuage the 
> Registries.
> 
> a.