[gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated notes + decision making methodology & appeal

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

An updated version of the stage V – Policy Effectiveness and Compliance has 
been posted on the wiki ( https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team) 
incorporating the notes from our previous meeting. Please let me know if there 
is anything missing.

In addition, as discussed, please find below the proposed methodology for 
making decisions and appeal mechanism proposed by the WG WT in the GNSO Working 
Group Guidelines.

With best regards,

Marika

================

>From the WG WT GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
>(http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05feb09-en.pdf)

1.1.Standard Methodology for Making Decisions

The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of 
the following designations:

·     Unanimous consensus

·     Rough consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees but most 
agree

·     Strong support but significant opposition

·     No consensus

In the case of rough consensus, strong support or no consensus, the WG Chair is 
encouraged to facilitate that minority viewpoint(s) are stated and recorded.

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a 
position by the Chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these 
steps sequentially:

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

2.    If the Chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). 
The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. If the liaison(s) 
supports the Chair's position, forward the appeal to the CO. The liaison(s) 
must explain his or her reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees 
with the Chair, forward the appeal to the CO. The liaison(s) and chair must 
both explain their reasoning in the response.

3.    If the CO supports the Chair and liaison's position, attach a statement 
of the appeal to the Board report. If the CO does not support the Chair and 
liaison’s position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair. This 
statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals 
process and should include a statement from the CO. [1] <#_ftn1>

Based upon the WG's needs and/or the Chair’s direction, WG participants may 
request that their names be associated explicitly with each view/position 
(optional).

If a chartering organization wishes to deviate from the standard methodology 
for making decisions or empower the WG to decide its own decision-making 
methodology it should be affirmatively stated in the WG Charter.

Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group. It is the role 
of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this 
designation to the Working Group. Member(s) of the Working Group should be able 
to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group 
discussion. However, if disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the 
above noted process to challenge the designation.

1.2.Appeal Process

Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically 
ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG or CO should 
first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter 
cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity 
to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization.

[1] <#_ftnref>  It should be noted that ICANN also has other conflict 
resolution mechanisms available that could be considered in case any of the 
parties are dissatisfied with the outcome of this process.