[gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested - section 3.6. Standard methodology for making decisions

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

3.6. Standard Methodology for Making Decisions

The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of 
the following designations:

·     Unanimous consensus

·     Rough consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees but most 
agree

·     Strong support but significant opposition

·     No consensus

In the case of rough consensus, strong support or no consensus, the WG Chair is 
encouraged to facilitate that minority viewpoint(s) are stated and recorded.

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a 
position by the Chair or any other rough consensus call, they may follow these 
steps sequentially:

1.    Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is 
believed to be in error.

2.    If the Chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). 
The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response. If the liaison(s) 
supports the Chair's position, forward the appeal to the CO. The liaison(s) 
must explain his or her reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees 
with the Chair, forward the appeal to the CO. The liaison(s) and chair must 
both explain their reasoning in the response.

3.    If the CO supports the Chair and liaison's position, attach a statement 
of the appeal to the Board report. If the CO does not support the Chair and 
liaison’s position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair. This 
statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals 
process and should include a statement from the CO. [1] <#_ftn1>

Based upon the WG's needs and/or the Chair’s direction, WG participants may 
request that their names be associated explicitly with each view/position 
(optional).

If a chartering organization wishes to deviate from the standard methodology 
for making decisions or empower the WG to decide its own decision-making 
methodology it should be affirmatively stated in the WG Charter.

Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group. It is the role 
of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this 
designation to the Working Group. Member(s) of the Working Group should be able 
to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group 
discussion. However, if disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the 
above noted process to challenge the designation.

________________________________
Comments

CG: The categories for reporting the WG level of support are unanimous 
consensus, rough consensus, strong support but significant opposition and no 
consensus. The term ‘strong consensus’ could easily be misinterpreted to mean a 
higher level of support than the term ‘rough consensus’. To avoid this, would 
it be better to use a term like ‘mixed support’? Also, the term ‘no consensus’ 
could possibly be understood to apply to ‘strong support but significant 
opposition’; it might be better to use a term like ‘no agreeement’. If changes 
are made to these categories, then the wording of the next sentence needs to be 
updated to reflect the changes and it that same sentence, the word ‘facilitate’ 
should be changed to ‘ensure’.

INTA: The Committee believes that it is helpful to provide a specific 
methodology for WG decision making and handling of disagreements about the 
“designation” of level of consensus to be given to any position reached by the 
WG. However, the Committee recommends:

· That the process be amended to require that the WG Chair ensure that the 
minority viewpoints are stated and recorded (rather than simply state that the 
“WG Chair is encouraged to facilitate that the minority viewpoint(s) are stated 
and recorded.”)

· that the designations attached to the label’s “Unanimous Consensus” “Rough 
Consensus” “Strong support” and “No consensus” be revised slightly. The term 
“consensus” suggests unanimity, or at least a lack of opposition (perhaps with 
some abstentions), so we recommend revising the label “Unanimous Consensus” to 
simply “Consensus” to avoid redundancy. On the same basis, the designation 
“Rough consensus” (i.e. only a small minority in opposition) appears 
self-contradictory, so we recommend revising it to: “Super Majority Support” to 
reflect this understanding. The label “Strong support but significant 
opposition” does not adequately convey the concept that seems to be intended: 
that there is a position with an identifiable preponderance or majority of 
support, but a significant minority of opposition. In other words, “strong 
support” does not indicate that the position is a majority position, so that 
term should be replaced with “Majority support but significant opposition.”

Likewise, in this context, “No consensus” does not appear intended to reflect a 
mere lack of unanimity, but a lack of any identifiable view having a 
preponderance or majority of support, so it should be replaced with a label 
such as “No majority position,” or “Divergent positions.”


RySG: The categories for reporting the WG level of support are noted as:

• Unanimous consensus;

• Rough consensus;

• Strong support but significant opposition and

• No consensus.

While the RySG is in agreement that specific percentage levels ought to be 
avoided when it comes to illustrating the different categories of support, the 
broad terms indicated in the Guidelines document could give rise to some 
confusion. For example, the term ‘strong support’ could potentially be 
misinterpreted to mean a higher level of support than is meant with the term 
‘rough consensus’. To avoid this misinterpretation, the RySG suggests the use 
of an alternative term such as ‘mixed support’. Also, the term ‘no consensus’ 
could possibly be understood to apply to ‘strong support but significant 
opposition’ and as such, it may be better to use a term such as ‘no agreement’. 
These changes would help bring additional clarity to the support levels.

While Paragraph 3.6 notes the facilitator role of the Liaison in the case where 
there is disagreement on a support designation, that same function is not 
foreseen in the Appeal Process set out under Paragraph 3.7 and should be 
included as an interim step.

GD: Section 3.6 asks the working group Chair to determine the level of 
consensus achieved for each working group position.  The designations of 
“Unanimous Consensus” and “No Consensus” are self-evident, but there remains 
significant confusion regarding the differences between “Rough Consensus” and 
“Strong Support with Significant Opposition.”

The lack of clear definition between these middle designations has surfaced in 
many working groups.  We recommend that the PPSC WG-WT consider renaming 
“Strong Support” to “Minimal Consensus – Majority Agreement by a small margin.” 
 Alternatively, the PPSC WG-WT could combine the two into a single designation, 
such as “Support for Alternative Positions,” with the understanding that the 
count and names of each member’s position be included with the alternative view.

The PPSC WG-WT should specify any methods or tools available for use by the 
Chair or ICANN Staff to test consensus on a given topic.  Potential examples 
include online surveys, straw polls, or a roll call on the working group 
mailing list.

The second paragraph refers to “any other rough consensus call,” but we believe 
this is an error, and should read “any other consensus call.”  Please correct 
or clarify.  The next sentence requires that “several participants” can follow 
the appeals procedure if they disagree with the consensus designation, but this 
term is subjective and ambiguous.  We recommend this be modified to read “If 
any participant…”

The second and third steps of the appeals process are unclear, and require 
additional definition by the PPSC WG-WT.  Many scenarios are not considered, 
for example, what if the Chair and Liaison do not agree on the level of 
consensus achieved?  Is the GNSO Chair expected to resolve these differences as 
well, or refer these to the Council as a whole?

We strongly disagree with the proposal that explicitly listing working group 
participant names with each position should be “optional,” for two reasons. 
First, this information may be significant in the event of any appeals of 
consensus designations by the Chair, or (as provided for in the RAA and 
Registry Agreements) the policy output of the working group.  And secondly, 
ICANN’s commitment to openness and transparency would prohibit any degree of 
anonymous participation in working groups.  If there are any privacy concerns, 
then the GNSO Council should consider providing a privacy waiver as part of the 
call for volunteers as a requirement for participation.