Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter
Hi Tim not sure if this addresses your point, but FWIW the draft currently doesn't mandate a formal vote on any recommendations that the eventual WG may develop. Instead, it states that the Co-Chairs "may call for a vote of the Members on proposed recommendations if they reasonably believe that this will facilitate the WG¹s deliberations", in the broader context of striving for consensus that involves the full WG membership (ie including non-voting Observers). One reason for this is because the GNSO, and perhaps other SO/ACs as well, doesn't impose voting on its WGs, preferring that consensus calls be made more broadly and levels thereof determined by the Chair(s). That said, the current language doesn't preclude adding the proposed margins either. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx * One World. One Internet. * From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Monday, March 3, 2014 10:17 AM To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter > Not following very closely, so forgive me if this is already covered. The > problem with the vote will be if there is favor for one view by a very small > margin, perhaps even a single vote. It is likely since the reason voting may > used in the first place is due to a close deadlock. So I would hope that the > charter would define a reasonable margin for passing as I would hate to think > significant new policy would be passed when 49.9% of the stakeholders are not > in favor. > > For example, in the USA we may elect officials on very small margins, but laws > and policy require 60% or more of the legislators involved to be in favor > pass. > > Tim > > > On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:59 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> yep, i can see the value in that. >> >> m >> >> On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Mikey, >>> >>> I lean toward having the membership limits and voting rules in the charter. >>> Striving for full consensus is a good goal but it is not always achievable. >>> Having the limits and rules in the charter provides a ready means to use >>> them if needed but they don¹t have to be used if not needed. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> >>> From:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On >>> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor >>> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:21 PM >>> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] JB on the revised draft charter >>> >>> wow. the combination of colors and capitalization make this a little >>> hair-raising to read kinda reminds me of a web page circa 1995 when the >>> author discovered color and flashing fonts. i¹d like to gently lobby for >>> doing markup in the Word document. it would be easier for me to follow, and >>> probably a lot easier for Mary to turn around a new draft. sorry to be such >>> a grouch on a beautiful sub-zero (Fahrenheit) Sunday. :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> the care and precision of this work is great there were a few times where >>> it was extremely helpful having this kind of charter rigor during the DSSA. >>> >>> >>> >>> it seems like there¹s general convergence here and i don¹t feel strongly >>> enough about this next point to derail the conversation over it. but here >>> goes >>> >>> >>> >>> if we¹re aiming the working group at working by full/unanimous consensus >>> anyway, do we really care a lot about membership limits, voting rules and >>> the like? if the WG gets down to a place where a deadlock needs to be >>> broken by voting, and only official people can vote, aren¹t we instead >>> looking at an issue that¹s in need of more refinement by the WG? i¹m not >>> happy with the way i¹m saying this, it¹s not very clear. but it seems like >>> the ³full consensus² direction reduces the need for some of that >>> membership-strata detail. >>> >>> >>> >>> not a big point, i certainly won¹t battle it. :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:16 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have added my comments IN ALL CAPS. >>> Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this. Here is my >>> feedback. >>> Is there a reason why we refer to (Co-)Chairs¹ throughout the charter. Why >>> not call them Co-Chairs¹? I agree/AS DO I >>> Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the >>> Members of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote? It might >>> be good to clarify this. In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their SO >>> or AC, then they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their >>> co-chair hast when doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their >>> voices when voting occurs. On the other hand, if the co-chairs are expected >>> to serve specifically in a completely neutral capacity, then they would not >>> need to vote; in such a case though, I don¹t think they should be included >>> in the Minimum and Maximum Member numbers. I think it would be helpful to >>> clarify these issues in the charter. Yes the co-chairs will be selected >>> from the members and by the members/AGREED >>> I assume that they would be allowed to vote/YES >>> although the question itself reflects an interesting difference in approach >>> between the ccnso and the gnso/DON¹T WANT TO FOCUS ON THOSE PESKY DIFFERENCE >>> AT THE OUTSET >>> Our task is to come up with a set of recommendations regarding process and >>> appropriate topics for cross constituency work which necessarily precedes >>> (AND ACCOMMODATES?) policy development under both the GNSO and ccNSO rules. >>> >>> >>> Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like >>> Members? If so, the following statement is fine: ³Each of the participating >>> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their >>> own rules and procedures.² If not (i.e., if Observers may participate >>> without being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be >>> changed to ³Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to >>> the WG in accordance with their own rules and procedures.² If we say ³in >>> accordance with their own rules and procedures² then doesn¹t that permit the >>> respective SOs and ACs to choose whether they want to appoint specific >>> observers or whether they want to let anyone who is interested participate >>> as an observer? I am guessing that the ccNSO approach will be anyone who >>> volunteers is welcome. But I¹m not sure how the other SOs and ACs like to >>> handle this/FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORKING GROUP, WE WANT PARTICIPANTS TO >>> BE OFFICIAL SO THAT THE FINDINGS WILL CARRY SOME WEIGHT. WITH AT LEAST >>> SOMEONE IN THAT OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SELF-NOMINATED OBSERVERS CAN BE >>> ACCOMMODATED >>> >>> >>> Regarding SOIs the charter says: ³Participants from SOs or ACs for which a >>> Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an >>> SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).² This >>> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn¹t >>> require one. I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and I >>> assume that that is what is intended. Here¹s some possible rewording to >>> make it clear: ³All Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for >>> participation in the WG. Participants from SOs or ACs for which a Statement >>> of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an SOI in >>> accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others shall >>> submit an SOI that provides comparable information according to the rules of >>> one of the SO/ACs for which SOIs are required.² I¹m ok with that >>> approach/AGREED; AN SOI IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE >>> WORKING GROUP. >>> >>> >>>> --------- Original Message --------- >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter >>>> From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Date: 3/1/14 10:04 am >>>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mary Wong" >>>> <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> See my responses. In blue >>>> >>>> J. Beckwith Burr >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer >>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 >>>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / >>>> becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Date: Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 9:29 AM >>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx" >>>> <gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] RE: For your review: revised draft charter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Becky, John and Mary for the quick turn-around on this. Here is my >>>> feedback. >>>> >>>> >>>> Is there a reason why we refer to (Co-)Chairs¹ throughout the charter. >>>> Why not call them Co-Chairs¹? I agree >>>> >>>> >>>> Is it correct to assume that the Co-Chairs will be appointed from the >>>> Members of the WG, in other words, they would be allowed to vote? It might >>>> be good to clarify this. In my opinion, if the co-chairs represent their >>>> SO or AC, then they should be allowed to vote by simply taking off their >>>> co-chair hast when doing so; otherwise, the SO/AC would lose one of their >>>> voices when voting occurs. On the other hand, if the co-chairs are >>>> expected to serve specifically in a completely neutral capacity, then they >>>> would not need to vote; in such a case though, I don¹t think they should be >>>> included in the Minimum and Maximum Member numbers. I think it would be >>>> helpful to clarify these issues in the charter. Yes the co-chairs will be >>>> selected from the members and by the members. I assume that they would be >>>> allowed to vote, although the question itself reflects an interesting >>>> difference in approach between the ccnso and the gnso. Our task is to come >>>> up with a set of recommendations regarding process and appropriate topics >>>> for cross constituency work which necessarily precedes policy development >>>> under both the GNSO and ccNSO rules. >>>> >>>> >>>> Am I correct in assuming that Observers need to be appointed just like >>>> Members? If so, the following statement is fine: ³Each of the participating >>>> SOs and ACs shall appoint Participants to the WG in accordance with their >>>> own rules and procedures.² If not (i.e., if Observers may participate >>>> without being appointed by their SO/AC), then this probably should be >>>> changed to ³Each of the participating SOs and ACs shall appoint Members to >>>> the WG in accordance with their own rules and procedures.² If we say ³in >>>> accordance with their own rules and procedures² then doesn¹t that permit >>>> the respective SOs and ACs to choose whether they want to appoint specific >>>> observers or whether they want to let anyone who is interested participate >>>> as an observer? I am guessing that the ccNSO approach will be anyone who >>>> volunteers is welcome. But I¹m not sure how the other SOs and ACs like to >>>> handle this. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding SOIs the charter says: ³Participants from SOs or ACs for which a >>>> Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an >>>> SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any).² This >>>> seems to imply that an SOI is not required if the applicable SO/AC doesn¹t >>>> require one. I think an SOI should be required by all WG Participants and >>>> I assume that that is what is intended. Here¹s some possible rewording to >>>> make it clear: ³All Participants must submit a Statement of Interest for >>>> participation in the WG. Participants from SOs or ACs for which a >>>> Statement of Interest is required for participation in a WG shall submit an >>>> SOI in accordance with the rules applicable to that SO/AC (if any); others >>>> shall submit an SOI that provides comparable information according to the >>>> rules of one of the SO/ACs for which SOIs are required.² I¹m ok with that >>>> approach. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On >>>> Behalf Of Mary Wong >>>> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:35 PM >>>> To: gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx >>>> Subject: [gnso-ccwg-dt] For your review: revised draft charter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear DT members, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please find attached the draft charter, revised following the call >>>> yesterday and as reviewed by the Co-Chairs, in both CLEAN and REDLINED >>>> versions. Once we are able to confirm a date and time for the next DT >>>> meeting, I will send you the information about that as well. As such, >>>> please take a moment to fill out the Doodle poll at your earliest >>>> convenience: http://doodle.com/4zur3s2auax8ivr8 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks and cheers >>>> >>>> Mary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mary Wong >>>> >>>> Senior Policy Director >>>> >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >>>> >>>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * One World. One Internet. * >>> >>> >>> >>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com >>> <http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, >>> LinkedIn, etc.) >>> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com >> <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, >> LinkedIn, etc.) >> Attachment:
smime.p7s
|