[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Fw: [council] RE: SCI Charter Revisions

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

See the outcome of the related discussion at the council meeting last week as 
input for the SCI call later today.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich 



From: Jonathan Robinson 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:29 AM
To: 'Ron Andruff' 
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [council] RE: SCI Charter Revisions

Dear Ron,

 

Thank-you again for this letter.  As you will no doubt by now be aware, the 
Council did discuss the SCI and the important questions you have raised in your 
communication below.

 

Essentially the Council agreed the following:

1.       That the Charter of the SCI should be modified to confirm that the SCI 
is a standing committee and; 

    2.. That the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose 
the above and any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these to 
the Council and; 
    3.. That the SCI should not propose to modify the decision making 
methodology (away from full consensus) as the GNSO Council will consider this 
particular issue further.
    Noting: That should the decision be made to move from full consensus in 
future, that should be a decision for the GNSO Council.
I trust that you will find this response and the associated guidance helpful.  

In addition, please could you convey my thanks on behalf of the Council to the 
SCI for their work to date and on-going contribution.

Best wishes,

 

Jonathan

 

 

Jonathan Robinson

Chair

ICANN GNSO Council

 

jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx

Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103

skype: jonathan.m.r

 

 

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 02 September 2013 03:44
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: SCI Charter Revisions
Importance: High

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter revisions 
on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013.  At its meeting on August 
6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the GNSO Sessions in 
Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful to more formally 
seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next steps for the SCI 
Charter.  One aspect, in particular, based on the discussion in Durban, seems 
clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the SCI to continue as a 'standing 
committee'. We would like the Charter to reflect that, should that indeed be 
the case. (I refer you to the email on this topic that I sent you on 08 July 
2013, just prior to Durban.)

 

At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for 
decision-making (‘full consensus’ versus Standard Methodology for Making 
Decisions).  The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this issue 
further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to share their 
views in support of one or the other option.  We now understand that Jeff 
Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was initially 
required to operate under full consensus.  At the SCI’s August 6th meeting and 
since then on our mailing list, members expressed an interest in helping guide 
the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel there should or 
should not be full consensus.   

 

The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using “full or unanimous 
consensus” or “rough or near consensus” came from my request, as in-coming SCI 
Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki since the 
Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the language in 
both the document and on the Wiki was outdated.  I also noted at the time, and 
do so here again for Council’s edification, the SCI Charter is further governed 
by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within the SCI came in two 
forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to unanimous consensus 
“improves our product” because it ensures that the Committee dedicates the time 
to explore all points of view and works to find stronger outcomes; the 
arguments against full consensus included concerns about potentially using the 
SCI in a way that would drive substantive outcomes in the GNSO, whether 
intentionally or not, by pushing through decisions on procedure/process to meet 
an immediate need, or that any member choosing to remain steadfast in 
opposition could capture the SCI process.  All SCI members however respect that 
balanced discussions result in consensus – in some form – leading to better 
appreciation of each member’s contributions, more confidence in the Committee 
itself and in the process.  

 

The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on 
procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the 
Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent defined 
in the Guidelines, ‘rough or near consent’ (defined as “a position where only a 
small minority disagrees, but most agree”) immediately follows ‘full or 
unanimous consent’.  We are all aware of the ramifications of full consensus, 
having worked under this standard since ICANN’s inception.  ‘Near consensus’, 
provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their respective 
stakeholder group’s position, while it also provides for written rationale 
entered into the public record for any and all dissenting opinion(s), thus 
providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it in coming to its own 
determinations.  Notably, the SCI does not make any determinations other than 
to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council, which it, in turn, discusses, 
accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems appropriate. 

 

On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform your 
discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the Council on the 
Charter and consensus issues, if so requested.  

 

We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the 
Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the SCI 
Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its 
determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this 
task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate.

 

We await your guidance.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ron Andruff

SCI Chair

 

 

 

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

www.rnapartners.com