[gnso-ppsc-wg] Notes from PPSC meeting on 1 December

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the main issues discussed at yesterday's PPSC meeting and the 
proposed approach to address each of these issues. Please feel free to share 
your comments / questions with the mailing list. The PPSC expects to discuss 
these issues in further detail at its meeting on Sunday in Cartagena.

With best regards,

Marika

================
Notes from PPSC Meeting on 1 December 20101. 

1. Determining level of consensus - Concern expressed: 'I believe how this 
currently is explained/defined is still not workable. The RAA, and I believe 
Registry contracts as well, allow contracted parties to question claims of 
consensus on policies. This was not really an issue in the past under the task 
force model, which included direct voting, but it is a growing concern under 
the WG model. We can discuss further, but I strongly believe that all stated 
views and claims of consensus of any level MUST indicate the specific WG 
members in support. Anyone that does not want to be identified with a 
particular view should not be counted, and I question why they would be 
participating in the first place. We cannot have anonymous participation. So, I 
believe there is more work that needs to be done in this section. These WGs are 
not setting optional standards, they are establishing mandatory regulations for 
contracted parties and for registrants'.

Proposed approach: J. Scott to draft alternative language to replace the 
current language on page 17 ('Based upon the WG's needs and/or the Chair's 
direction, WG participants may request that their name not be associated 
explicitly with any Consensus view/position.') to address the concern 
expressed. Proposed language to be circulated to the mailing list shortly.

2. Who may question a consensus call - Concern expressed: 'As I pointed out 
before, I strongly feel that any one WG member should be able to raise an issue 
or to question a consensus call. There are protections in place if someone is 
being abusive. Their concern should be heard and looked into. That act may 
embolden others to speak up who were too timid to do so individually 
themselves, or may uncover problems that were not evident to anyone else. Do we 
really think that the Chair or Council can tell someone that their concern will 
more or less be ignored without possibly creating more trouble than it is 
worth, or that there will never be a situation where they may want to act? 
Making exceptions to this rule will be very difficult and could create some 
nasty situations. Let the rules on abusive behavior deal with it'.

Proposed approach: J. Scott to draft alternative language to be added to 
section 3.6 to clarify that an individual WG member may work with the Chair / 
Liaison if there is disagreement with the designation given to a position to 
ensure that the onus is on the Chair / Liaison to determine whether there is an 
issue instead of the WG member having to recruit support from other WG members.

3. Liaison neutrality - Concern expressed: 'I can live with this, but I think 
it will have an impact on the number of Councilors willing to take a liaison 
role. At least from my perspective, I would likely not'.

Proposed approach: It was explained that the current language does not intend 
to prevent the Liaison to express an opinion or contribute to the discussions, 
but it is expected that the Liaison does not become an advocate for a specific 
position but remains a neutral participant. It was agreed that no further 
changes would need to be made to the current language.

4. Definition of Consensus: Concern expressed: 'As a registry, we have an issue 
with respect to PDPs with the phrase " This is sometimes just referred to as 
Rough or Near Consensus" inserted into the definition of Consensus. We are 
concerned that that addition may implicitly lower the threshold required in the 
ICANN contracts and be read by some that "consensus" as defined in the WG-WT 
report is lower than it should be'.

Proposed approach: Delete the sentence 'This is sometimes just referred to as 
Rough or Near Consensus.' on page 16 and replace it with a footnote that reads: 
'For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the 
definition of _Consensus_ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough 
consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a 
GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must 
restrict themselves to the term _Consensus_ as this may have legal 
implications'.