Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

And the specific questions we are trying to answer of DOI?

Is it:

- did the WT give any indication that DOI were not meant to be written?
-- if so, does the WT believe it is appropriate to send a correction to the OSC 
on this issue?
-- if not, does the WT believe it is appropriate to change the decision at this 
point and send a new decision to the OSC

--- with a follow on question of what other elements is it appropriate to 
change at this point?

I think perhaps Ray had a different way of wording the initial question, but I 
believe that the two question may be logically similar.  But I am sure I will 
be corrected.

a.


On 29 Sep 2010, at 17:38, Ray Fassett wrote:

> Thank you, Avri.  What I heard on the call today was the will of the WT 
> members to review the language for the reasons as stated with your providing 
> a dissenting opinion.  All members of the WT are invited to participate in 
> all WT matters whether by e-mail or by teleconference.  Everything has been 
> and will continue to be noted for the record.  As of today, as decided on 
> today's call, I expect for us to be taking up the subject of written DOI's as 
> our first agenda item on our next teleconference in 2 weeks hopefully towards 
> group resolution and/or recommendation.  E-mail discussion prior to is 
> certainly healthy and always encouraged by all WT members.
> 
> Ray
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:45 PM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Cool.  I knew that was the basic, but I did not remember if that was what in 
> this group's charter.  I actually thought we had decided to work on full 
> consensus in our charter.  I guess that is the OSC itself that works on the 
> basis of full consensus.
> 
> It means he does not need a vote.  Rather just needs to determine what level 
> of support he has.
> 
> Ray certainly does not have full consensus, he may have rough consensus, 
> though I am not sure I would accept that yet.
> 
> I am certainly comfortable with Strong Support but significant opposition.
> 
> But really we will need to hear rom the other members of the group on this 
> issue.  And I expect we need to outline it writing for them.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:14, Julie Hedlund wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> Thanks for pointing out the defective link.  I will fix it.  The relevant
>> section pertaining to decision making in the Charter is provided below.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Julie
>> 
>> Decision Making: The WT shall function on the basis of ³rough consensus²
>> 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 no more than 1/3 disagrees and at least 2/3
>> agree
>> € Strong support (at least a simple majority), but significant opposition
>> (more than 1/3)
>> € No majority position
>> 
>> In all cases, the Chair will include the names and affiliations of those in
>> support of each position and for participants representing a group (e.g.,
>> constituencies, stakeholder groups, other groups) will indicate if their
>> support represents the consensus view of their constituency/group.
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/29/10 4:06 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Today you mentioned that, while you would hate to do it, you might have to
>>> resort fo a vote if we did not have consensus.
>>> 
>>> I went to check and see whether outr charter allowed for us to decide in the
>>> middle of a subject, once we found that we did not have easy consensus to
>>> switch to a voting mechanism.  I don't think we can but was not sure, so
>>> needed to check the charter.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately,
>>> 
>>> https://st.icann.org/static/3.7.0.11/skin/s3/html/index.cgi?gnso_operations_wo
>>> rk_team_charter
>>> 
>>> is a dead link.
>>> 
>>> In any case, I would hope that any vote, if the charter indeed permits 
>>> voting,
>>> would be carried out in a way that would include all members of the WT - 
>>> even
>>> those who rarely if ever join us on the calls.
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>