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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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>