[gnso-ppsc-wg] additional questions

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My first impression on the questions.

- How should the GNSO Council deal with recommendations that are not consensus 
recommendations, but that have rough consensus or strong support?

I think this depends.

If upon revieiwing the discussions and consideration they find that a complete 
job was done and a sufficinet attempt was made to reach full consensus they 
acept the report and take the level of support into consideration in terms of 
their decision to put forward the recommendaiton to the board.

If on the other hand, they see an approach not considered or point that was not 
covered or beleive that more discussion is needed, they can send it back with 
questions/suggestions for further discussion.

In any case it should neither be accepted nor rejected without the due 
diligence to make sure that all that could be considered was - and that any and 
all comment received in constituency, SG or community comments were adequately 
considered and responded to.  they also need to determine that sufficient 
effort was put into reaching consensus - they can also send it back with 
recommendations on ways not attempted in reaching consensus.

 
- 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? 

Any comment that is a good comment should be considered, whomsoever it comes 
from.   Ideas should be considered on their merit and on the basis of not 
having been fully considered before, not based on who makes them.

What is special about the constituencies is that they are specifically invited 
to make early comments and as members of SG groups they get to manage the 
process and get to determine that due considerations was given to all ideas, 
including their own.  Individuals have to find their own way to the table and 
need to respond to general calls for comments.  But a good thought is a good 
thought no matter who it comes from.

- 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? 

I do not think so.  first it should not be a vote, but a process intended to 
reach consensus. The basis should be on whether the idea was given full 
consideration and once it was clearly that it as understood by all it was 
accepted by most or not acepted by most.  The WG process are not to be run on a 
voting basis, so it is the representation of points of view that counts, not 
how many subscribe to the idea.

- 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)?

I think general guidelines are good.  I think it is also a good idea for the WG 
chair to not only work at recruiting a balanced group but to report on the 
degree to which s/he thought the group was balanced in its operation - 
remembering that it is relevant points of view and not groups that determine 
balance.

a.