Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a PDP

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify, currently a motion to terminate a PDP would need a 
Supermajority Vote in order to pass (From the ICANN Bylaws: A "GNSO 
Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each 
House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other 
House). The proposal is to apply that same voting threshold to suspend a PDP to 
ensure that this has broad support from the GNSO Council and cannot be misused 
by a small group to stop a PDP they might not like.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 25 July 2012 01:07
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address suspending a 
PDP

Not speaking for Krista or other registrars, but as an individual.

I think it makes sense to have _some_ mechanism for the council (or "Chartering 
Organization", if it is the Board or someone else) to shut off a PDP that is 
already underway.  But I have concerns about how this mechanism could be 
used/misused.

Also, our criteria must be defined as air-tight as possible:

"Lack of Participation" should be defined in terms of a percentage of meetings 
/ teleconferences that failed to reach quorum, or lack of volunteer members, or 
absence of traffic on the mailing list.
"No Longer Necessary"  not sure who makes this determination.  The 
constituencies / SGs / councilors / organization that originated the PDP should 
be involved, at a minimum.
"Deadlock"  Pretty much every PDP has hit this point on some issue or another.

I think all definitions should be as narrow as possible, and the voting 
threshhold to kill a PDP should be high (supermajority?).

Thanks--


J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Proposed language to address
suspending a PDP
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, July 24, 2012 3:00 am
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>>

Dear All,

Following on from the last meeting, please find hereby the proposed language to 
be added to the PDP Manual to address suspending a PDP after initiation:

The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a 
Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a 
Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following are 
illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or 
suspension of a PDP:
1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify 
recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a 
consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated 
to the PDP;
2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP 
that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or warranting a 
suspension; or
3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the 
work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively 
conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation.
* Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of 
the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council 
until further notice.
This would be a modification of the current language of section 15 of the PDP 
manual (modified language in bold).

Looking forward to receiving your feedback.

With best regards,

Marika