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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 4 May 2010, at 14:37, Marika Konings wrote:

> 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.

i agree on the last pint about the usage of facilitate.

i prefer full consensus - the word consensus is so overladed with meanings in 
icann and else that we cannot assume that all who read will use the full 
dictionary meaning of consensus.

the difference between RC and SS but SO  is that RC is really vVSS but MS, very 
Very Strong Support with Minimal Opposition.

a.