[gnso-ppsc-wg] Notes on Group B report on 4,5, 6 and addition of 9 view, since it was missed earlier

["S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Just a note. Since our group was not clear as to whether the required 
report was for only the "Interim Work Team Rules" or also in addition 
for the "Work Rules"
for all Working Groups in the future, our stab at it that was circulated 
tried to capture both possibilties. Now, realising that it is only to be 
intended for the former, we have reviewed it from the perspective of 
what needs to be changed in the current interim work team rules only. 
From this point of view the only changes from the perspective of what 
we reviewed - 4, 5 and 6 are as follows:
(a) The 4-5-6 overall exceptions to rules point cannot logically apply 
in our special case of being a group set-up to kick-start the WG model 
and develop rules for it. But it could logically apply for all future WGs.
(b) Item 6:  Only  the suggestion that  there be a  survey of WG  
members views on the matter collected to aid in speeding the PPSC 
arbitration/investigation process is different from current Interim Rules.
(c) Item 5: Diversity and expertise (if feasible) in drafting group and 
drafting group chair (as defined in Board guidelines to be a diffrent 
chair(s))  as suggested explicity in the Board Guidelines bullet points 
has been  introduced. A bare minimum size for the drafting group is 
being suggested since the Board Guideline calls for a "variety of 
voices" - and the number suggested is" no less than 3" since a "variety" 
is at least 3  in English. 

(d) Item 4: Much of what is there was intended for the later "Work 
Rules" that we are to develop and refine and not neccesarily for current 
Interim Rules. In any case, there are 3 differences from the Interim Rules.
(1) A simplification of decision outcome classification - the strong 
support with significant opposition type
and the minority viewpoint(s) being merged into a single type - a 
tabulation of positions and the number of its supporters, which is 
already required by the Board Guidelines. The support-spread stats 
should address what is meant by the labels majority/minority explicitly.
(2) A detailed and imperfect suggestion of how to or whether to solve 
the issue of "virtual egregious non-attendance non-participation but 
voting nevertheless" - based on rolling attendance.  While the Board 
Guideline specifies "a minimum threshold  for active support based on 
involving numeric and distributional components should be established at 
the outset", this attendance issue could probably be postponed to the 
"work rules" discussion stage and not the current "interim rules stage". 
Further one would assume the Board language suggests thet we develop 
acutal quantitative estimates of/for active support at the outset -  our 
suggestion is to skip/ignore this for the Interim Rules nevertheless and 
leave that for "Work Rule" stage as its likley to take time.
(3) The idea that at the very end a review of all previously and 
progressively voted decisions where only Unanimous or General consenus 
(Board Guideline specifies "General Consenus" as one with at least one 
formal objection)  can  be  allowed to have  formal objections 
introduced and recorded, since a progressively decided set of 
inter-related issues may affect earlier decisions. Previous agreement 
will not be overturned (unless unanimous) but leaving the possibility 
for a changed individual opinion reflected as a formal objection to that 
agreement. Again this one might be better left for our next step "Work 
rules" rather than this "Interim stage"
(We attach our original reporty on 4,5 and 6 at the very bottom again 
for convenience.).
************** Report on Item 9: Cost implicationsof bringing in 
expertise etc. ************
While the Board Guidelines are clear on addressing the cost implications 
of bringing in expertise etc, there seems to be no language at all in 
our Interim Work Rules.
We suggest we should simply copy the relevant para from page 18 of the 
Board Guidleine and add the following to it.
*The Work Team and its chair in consultation with ICANN staff, shall 
outset let the Work Team know hat range of budget is available - some 
crude estimate. This in mind as the Work Team proceeds, it shall 
identify any needs for outside help and resources while being mindful of 
the budget available and request for such if and when deemed appropriate *

Cheers

Subbiah and Alexei Sozonov (we have been joined now by another Alexey, 
Alexey Mykhaylov)



*********Previous report on 4, 5 and 6 ********

Initial Ideas - everything is up for debate; these are just quick stabs. 
Neither Subbiah or Sozonov are  even 100% committed to these yet. More 
thought needed.
For 4,5, and 6 together - Any deviation from these rules in a 
case-by-case basis should be pre-set and agreed to before convening WG. 
If a chaneg is desired
during WG, theer must be 100% acceptance (no abstensions in a special 
vote), to change mid-course and follow new rules. Otherwise break-up WG 
and re-start
with new rules.

5.    Drafting group  formation.
     (a) Ask for volunteeers.
     (b) Include subject matter experts and diverse under-represented 
groups of Internet-user base (Mongloians use the Internet too) as much 
as feasible.
     (c) In partcular drafting group chair must ideally be expert or 
have experience.
     (c) If drafting group is too small (say "3 or less") or average 
attendance/partcipation in drafting group work is less than 3 (?), go 
back to WG chair and \
         form group again etc.
    
6.  If procedural rules not followed.
    (a) Objector brings privately to chair (or drafting group chair). 
One week for private resolution to satisfaction or a process in place by 
chair agreed to by objector.
    (b) If (a) does not work, objector places formal objection in 
writing to whole WG mailing list, chair and chair/objector sends 
immediately to WG "boss entity" .
    (c)  At next scheduled meeting (or if Chair convenese special 
meeting or by email) a non-binding, informative survey/vote will be 
tabulated of whether the other
        WG participants feel rules were misapplied (just their 
opinion). This crude survey will be sent within a few days to the "boss 
entity" that will arbitrate for their
         reference, so they can act fast. Idea is not to stall WG 
continuing decision-making process.
    (d) Within 3 weeks of (b)  and with (c)  info in hand , "boss 
entity" will assess and pronounce verdict. During this  3 week period 
and  if  verdict takes longer the
          objected too issue/decision will be set aside, whiel WG 
continues with other issues/work. Claerly in some extreme cases, the 
"boss entity" could assign a
          co-chair (or replace chair) during interim or permanently.
   (f) Objector, has the right to skip step (a) and move straight to 
step (b) if they deem speed is of the essence.

4. Consensus  Thresholds - this one needs more debate. We have some 
thoughts and will discuss more on call. This list below is meant to 
create controversy/debate.
  (a)  Every member has a  single vote. Votes are always taken and 
recorded on each issue (even those "generally" agreed to) and tabulated. 
Attendance is also taken and tabulated. (Meeting times may not be set so 
onerously that it becomes a tool of manipulation - it has happended 
before. Just general norms).
  (b) Minimum attendance before being able to vote - rolling log of 
attendance. If 50% rolling threshold, after first 4  meetings, is not  
in place (RAT = Rolling Attendance Threshoild), then member cannot vote 
on any current issue unless he/she mproves RAT through subsequent 
meetings. We can debate other ways
 of ensuring attendance/particpation/voting correlation.
  (c) Type of decisions at the  time of each decsion/vote. All decisons 
must have at least "3 (????)" positive RAT votes.
       (1) Unanimous - 100% RAT agree, No abstensions.
       (2) Consensus -At least 40% (???) of RATs agree and no Formal 
Objection filed (not to confuse this objection with the procedural rule 
objection above in 5)
       (3) All other situations- Alternate view tabulation.
            All RATs have to vote on a number of diffrent platform 
positions generated by WG (chair tries to reduce number by merging 
amalgmation where possible)
            or abstain. The alternate views and raesoanings are listed 
by rank order (no. of votes), with tabulation of who voted and their RAT 
rating.
            No other attempt will be made to simplify or characterize 
as majority/minority view etc., since final decisions will be taken by 
other Couincil members.
            Working groups only recommend.
  (d) Issues that have already been decided cannot be re-visited unless 
there is CONSENSUS (defined above) to re-visit.
   (e) At final or near-final meeting of WG a review will betaken of 
all decisions. No changes will be allowed EXCEPT for a re-visit of all 
decisions taken (oneby one) and in the cases of unanimous or consenus 
ONLY - formal objections can be taken to downgrade their agreement level.