RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + action items

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

This has not been a problem in the past. We have had only 2 such 
cases of an AC requesting an Issues Report; one was easily approved 
with a few no votes (DOmain tasting) and the other was approved unanimously.
The issue was raised by Avri and I had volunteered to try to craft 
some words to reflect the intent of what had been said during the discussion.
Is the text as I originally prepared it acceptable, without the 
addition. That is, a meeting may be requested and following that the 
AC may submit a statement requesting a re-vote, but with no 
requirement that the Council Agree. Or should it be silent of a 
re-vote but allow a Councillor to submit a new motion to approve the 
PDP (without explicit words such as that, I think that it would need 
to go back to a new Issues Report otherwise).
Alan

At 05/02/2011 10:04 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> This seems as though we are creating a "Reconsideration Request" at the
> Council level.  Why?  Has this been a problem in the past?
>
> I agree that establishing a post-vote dialogue between the Council and
> the requesting SO/AC is a good idea.  But I disagree that a re-vote is
> required.  Mandating that the Council re-vote on the issue undermines
> their role as managers of the policy development process, and it's easy
> to predict that -every- PDP that does not pass the Council will require
> two votes.
>
>
> I could support the exception scenario in which the SO/AC believes there
> were material omissions in the issues report, and that Council needs to
> reconsider new information that wasn't available during their first
> vote.
>
> Thanks--
>
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document +
> action items
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, February 03, 2011 1:44 pm
> To: PDP WT <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>  On rereading this, it may be taken the "requesting a re-vote" could be
> refused by the GNSO. Changing the end of the sentence to "... for such a
> re-vote which cannot be refused by the GNSO Council." fixes it, but
> perhaps there is a more elegant way of phrasing it.
>
>  Alan
>
>  At 03/02/2011 02:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>  At 03/02/2011 11:42 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> + Recommendation # 18 - There was support for modifying the
> recommendation so that it would highlight that dialogue between GNSO
> Council members and the requesting AC would be adesirable option to
> pursue following a vote against the initiation of a PDPeither to better
> understand the reasons for declining a PDP and/or determining whether
> there would be options to modify the request so that it would receive
> support. Alan agreed to draft language for consideration by the WT.
>
>  Draft text for Recommendation 18
>
>  The PDP-WT recommends that if the GNSO votes to not initiate a PDP
> following an Issues Report requested by an AC, the AC or its
> representatives should have the right to a meeting with representatives
> of the GNSO, and in particular, those voting against the PDP, to discuss
> the rationale for the rejection and why the AC feels that
> reconsideration is appropriate. Following this meeting, the AC may
> submit a statement to the GNSO Council requesting a re-vote and giving
> it's rationale for such re-vote. This process may be followed just once
> for any given Issues Report.