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

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marika, many thanks for summarizing the questions and issues raised. 
As regards how the Council should handle WG recommendations that are not
built on consensus, I think the Council would need to examine each
situation on its own merits. It would obviously therefore be important
that a WG provides enough detail to the Council so that the Council has
as much information as possible to make an informed decision. 
The WG ought to be able to evaluate its own representativeness, both
with regard to individual participants or the WG as a whole. And of
course a balanced group on one issue may look completely different to
another one working on another issue because the impacted parties will
vary according to the subject matter.  Therefore, I think it would be
very difficult to provide guidelines on what a balanced group might look
like. A WG can only reach out to all stakeholders and encourage them to
join up; it cannot force them to get involved.
 
I think group representation is something that the WG Chair should opine
on by way of a side note when submitting the WG's recommendation.
 
Kind regards,
 
Caroline.
 
 
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 26 November 2009 10:26
To: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] For review - Updated document plus additional
questions
 
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