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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan and Team:


I think I'm ok with the original language.  The key point for me is that
we support the GNSO/AC dialogue, but do not require or presuppose any
specific outcome (e.g. revote).

Thanks.  Talk to you in the morning.


J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Updated outstanding issues document + 
action items
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, February 06, 2011 2:20 pm
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: PDP WT <gnso-ppsc-pdp@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.