Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] For review - Updated document plus additional questions

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

To kick this off

I think all these questions are difficult. I don' think there will be 
any satisfactory answer since they all basically at core point to how 
much "voting power" different people on the WG have given who they 
represent. Intrinsically this cannot be determined within the WG. An 
outside "agency" has to decided who has more "voting power" etc.
Of course there are formally 2 extreme alternatives.

(1) Ban individuals and only allow GNSO Council reps - and each rep will 
reflect the voting weight of the constituency on the council today. 
Clearly this is something I think the WG approach was trying to avoid - 
allow grassroots individual and all-comer participation, particularly 
when requisite expertise may not be found withinthe GNSO reps ranks itself.
(2) The other extreme is to basically say - whoever is interersted can 
join (individuals, GNSO reps) and everybody is equal vote and its 
totally open-ended. Like IETF where "those interested enough" will join 
and influence the debate. While at some level open and egalatarian and 
leaves outcomes to the power of the ideas themselves and how much 
support/activism that idea garners, one can envision scenarios where it 
can be abused/misused. And if we are not strong enough to accept such 
potentially untoward outcomes, then I am sure there will be discussion 
to restrict membership of the WG to make it more "balanced". The act of 
"balancing" will be in core essence a revisit of (1) above. Once again, 
an outside "agency" (in this case maybe us in this WG) in effect 
deciding on the voting weight of various parties.
So net net scenario (1) may equal (2).

The only way out of this formal dilemma I see is to let the WG form at 
any composition of members it arrives at (just record distribution) and 
let this group make a recomendation (the best it can produce even if 
skewed or biased). If there is no consensus but only strong support it 
will necessarily reflect the position of each member (and that member's 
afffiliation as individual or GNSO constituency rep will also be 
recorded and known). Then the GNSO Council itself (which will have 
voting power) will have to vote on accepting these recomendations - 
bearing in mind who in the WG supported the "strong support" 
recomendation and we let the Voting Power of the various GNSO 
constituencies at the Council level play out in whatever political 
machinations it may take. For example if the WG was all composed of GNSO 
registry members pushing for a "strong support" recomendation, then the 
Council can vote with that fact being known to them - maybe every 
constituency other than the Registry constituency in opposition to the 
Registry constituency :-)
Sigh, so we may still end up at not reforming much in some cases.

In any case, outside of trying to take things to its logical conclusions 
for the purposes of discussion, I am afraid I cannot come up with a 
naturally fair way to answer any of the questions below.
Of course we can always force some arbitrary limits and levels. Example 
- no more than 51% of WG can be individuals or no more than 49% etc etc.
My two cents.

Subbiah


Marika Konings wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Following the meeting yesterday, please find an updated version of the 
> Operating Model Guidebook posted on the Wiki 
> (https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team). As 
> discussed, the focus of next week’s meeting (Wednesday 2 December at 
> 19.00 UTC) will be on a number of questions that have been brought 
> forward by the PDP-WT for consideration. These questions are:
>     * How should the GNSO Council deal with recommendations that are
>       not consensus recommendations, but that have rough consensus or
>       strong support?
>     * Does or should it matter who is supporting those recommendations
>       i.e. if there is rough consensus between all constituencies /
>       stakeholder groups, but it is only two individual members of the
>       team (not representing anyone but themselves) should that be
>       given different weight when being presented to and considered by
>       the GNSO Council?
>     * In making the assessment between rough consensus and strong
>       support, should the WG Chair factor in the difference between a
>       vote that represents a whole constituency or stakeholder group
>       and that of an individual?
>     * Should the WG Guidelines provide any guidance on what represents
>       a balanced Working Group and should a WG or Chair provide its
>       view on whether it feels that recommendations are made on behalf
>       of a representative WG (a membership list might look
>       representative, but in practice many do not actively participate)?
>
>
> You are encouraged to share your views on the mailing list and/or 
> provide your input on the wiki page that has been created for this 
> purpose (see 
> https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?additional_questions) prior 
> to next week’s meeting.
> Happy Thanksgiving!
>
> Marika