[gnso-ppsc-pdp] RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] RE: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules
Mike, Tim and all, On last week's PPSC call, the group discussed at length the concern you both identify below, and asked me to summarize where the group came out on its discussion. Though the group appreciated the rationale behind trying to define the term "rough consensus" (and others) with more specificity, ultimately I believe the group concluded that adding greater granularity would complicate rather than minimize the potential challenges of making these determinations. In light of your concern, the group has suggested adding the last sentence to the following: Decision Making: The WTPPSC 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. Rough consensus is not necessarily measured by numbers alone. The full text in "track changes" is attached for the group's full review. This text is also posted to the PPSC workspace: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc And PDP and WG team spaces: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team Thanks, Liz -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:13 AM To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] RE: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules I agree with Mike on his points about quantifying terms like small minority, signficant opposition, and strong support. But I'm not convinced about merging Rough Consensus with Strong Support. It depends on how we decide to quantify the mentioned ambiguous terms. Regarding the Chair stating whether participants’ views “represent the consensus view of their Constituency,” that should be based on what the participants tell the team or claim. If they are claiming to represent a stakeholder group or constituency then whether or not they have determined that group's consensus view is relevant. If they haven't yet had the time, that should be stated and the Council may consider allowing more time after the report/recommendations are delivered so that such consensus views can be ascertained. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, January 27, 2009 11:57 am To: <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks Liz. I have some comments on these. · Decision Making: I would like clarity on the difference between these two possible judgment calls, to be made by the Chair, as these could be interpreted equally (in plain English): o Rough consensus position where a small minority disagrees but most agree o Strong support, but significant opposition · I know we don’t want to use the words ‘vote’ or ‘voting’, but it might help to quantify “small minority” and “significant” in percentage terms. Also should delete the word “strong” as that is not an objective term. · I might be more in favor of simply merging these two categories, as we did in the IDN Working Group and Fast Flux Working Group, particularly if we can’t clarify the differences · Following those bullets, the text indicates the Chair also will state whether participants’ views “represent the consensus view of their Constituency.” Assuming the Chair will consider the participant’s view on that question, this is problematic since it can take three weeks or longer to get anything like a “consensus view” of my constituency, under the Rules of our Charter. I believe most other constituencies have formal processes before declaring a consensus view, as well. So it probably does not make sense for this statement to be necessary as to every position, unless we are going to build in adequate time and process for going to our constituencies periodically. Thanks, Mike From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:04 PM To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Gomes, Chuck Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules To all PPSC members, Working Groups team members and PDP team members: (and copying Chuck Gomes as the Operations Steering Committee Chair) Attached and posted on all appropriate wiki pages are updated interim work team rules, reflecting modifications suggested during and following last Wednesday’s PPSC call. These rules have been designated “interim” to allow the work teams the opportunity to suggest modifications. Please note new redlines to the Statements of Interest section, the section on restricting participation and the section dealing with modifications to see the most significant changes. The wiki pages are: https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?working_group_team https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team Your suggestions are most welcome. Thanks, Liz Attachment:
PPSC interim work team rules draft revised 4 Feb 2009 clean.doc Attachment:
PPSC interim work team rules draft revised 4 Feb 2009.doc
|