RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The GNSO working group model that has evolved over the last 4 years has
de-emphasized voting and instead focused on getting a sense of the level
of support via less formal methods.  What happened in the call this
morning was consistent with that type of approach, where I think at
least five participants on the call expressed their approval for moving
forward with the task 1.4 recommendations once we allow a few more days
for others to respond.  Note that the Board also recommended this
approach and the PPSC Working Group WT is developing implementation
recommendations in that regard.
 
Section III, Work Team Rules, of our charter says the following: 
 
"Decision making: The WT shall function on the basis of "rough
consensus" meaning that all points of view will be discussed until the
Chair can ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been
covered. That consensus viewpoint will be reported to the OSC in the
form of a WT Report. Anyone with a minority view will be invited to
include a discussion in the WT Report. The minority view should include
the names and affiliations of those contributing to that part of the
report.

In producing the WT Report, the Chair will be responsible for
designating each position as having one of the following designations: 
* Unanimous consensus position 
* Rough consensus position where a small minority disagrees but most
agree
* Strong support, but significant opposition
* Minority viewpoint(s)

In all cases, the Chair will include the names and affiliations of those
in support of each position and for participants representing a group of
stakeholders (e.g., constituencies, stakeholder groups, other groups)
will indicate if their support represents the consensus view of their
constituency.

If any participant in a WT disagrees with the designation given to a
position by the Chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow
these steps sequentially:

1. Send an email to the Chair, copying the WT explaining why the
decision is believed to be in error.

2. If the Chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the OSC. The
Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

3. If the OSC supports the Chair, the participants may attach a
statement of the appeal to the GNSO Council Report generated by the OSC.
This statement should include the documentation from all steps in the
appeals process and should include a statement from the OSC."  

When our WT submits any recommendations whether those are a complete
package of all of our work or some subset of that work, we need to
report the level of support and include any minority opinions.  What was
happening in the call today was an effort to determine the level of
support for sending the subtask 1.4 recommendation to the OSC. That step
is targeted for being completed "early next week" when those who have
not yet expressed their support or lack of it for doing this are being
asked to do so.

Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
        Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:31 PM
        To: Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg; Olga Cavalli
        Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4:
Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
        
        
        Victoria,
        
        I don't believe it was the team's intention to call for a vote.
I believe it was simply to allow members who were not on the call to
comment/add to the discussion.  However, as I noted, I could be
mistaken.  I believe Olga is traveling at the moment, but I'm sure that
she will be happy to give her thoughts and help provide further
clarification.
        
        Thanks so much,
        
        Julie
        
        
        On 9/25/09 1:17 PM, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
        
        

                Well that would be a vote -is it being voted on? 
                 
                In that case I suggest we arrange a proper vote for our
next call. 
                 
                Best, 
                 
                
                 
                Victoria McEvedy
                Principal 
                McEvedys
                Solicitors and Attorneys 
                 
                
                96 Westbourne Park Road 
                London 
                W2 5PL
                 
                T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
                F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
                M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169 
                
                www.mcevedy.eu  
                Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
                This email and its attachments are confidential and
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its
attachments may also be legally privileged. If you have received this in
error, please let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and
its attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
                This email does not create a solicitor-client
relationship and no retainer is created by this email communication. 
                
                
                From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: 25 September 2009 18:16
                To: Victoria McEvedy; gnso-osc-csg
                Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask
4: Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
                
                Victoria,
                
                Thanks so much.  With respect to number 3 I had thought
we were seeking comments from those who were not on the call, but I may
be incorrect in my assumption.
                
                Best regards,
                
                Julie
                
                
                On 9/25/09 1:10 PM, "Victoria McEvedy" <
victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
                Thanks Julie I will be reverting with comments on
Monday. 
                 
                We already dealt with (3) on the call and failed to
reach a rough consensus as I understood it? 
                 
                Best,   
                 
                
                 
                Victoria McEvedy
                Principal 
                McEvedys
                Solicitors and Attorneys 
                 
                
                96 Westbourne Park Road 
                London 
                W2 5PL
                 
                T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
                F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
                M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169 
                
                www.mcevedy.eu  
                Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
                This email and its attachments are confidential and
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its
attachments may also be legally privileged. If you have received this in
error, please let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and
its attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
                This email does not create a solicitor-client
relationship and no retainer is created by this email communication. 
                
                
                From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [
mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
                Sent: 25 September 2009 16:36
                To: gnso-osc-csg
                Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION ITEM: Task 1, Subtask 4:
Draft Tool Kit Recommendations
                
                Dear Work Team members,
                
                On today's call we discussed the final draft of the Tool
Kit Services Recommendations for GNSO Organizations (Draft 3 11 Sept
09), which incorporates changes suggested by Claudio.  On the call we
decided to circulate this final draft to allow time for those who have
not already done so to comment on the document.  The Work Team is asking
for a response from you, no later than Tuesday, 29 September, on the
following:
                

                1.      Any suggested changes to Draft 3 of the Tool Kit
Services Recommendations 
                2.      If no suggested changes, please affirm that you
agree with the final draft version of the Recommendations 
                3.      Please indicate whether these Recommendations
should be provided  a) to the OSC as soon as they are agreed to by the
Work Team; b) along with Recommendations for the other Subtasks; or c)
please let us know if you have suggestions for another way to handle
these Recommendations. 
                        

                
                Also, those of you who were at the meeting please feel
free to add comments or clarifications to my summary of this action item
from our meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.
                
                Thank you very much.
                
                Best regards,
                
                Julie 
                
                __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4457 (20090925) __________
                
                The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
                
                http://www.eset.com
                
                
                __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925) __________
                
                The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
                
                http://www.eset.com
                 
                
                
                __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925) __________
                
                The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
                
                http://www.eset.com
                
                
                __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of virus signature database 4458 (20090925) __________
                
                The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
                
                http://www.eset.com