RE: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Mike on his points about quantifying terms like small
minority, signficant opposition, and strong support. But I'm not
convinced about merging Rough Consensus with Strong Support. It depends
on how we decide to quantify the mentioned ambiguous terms.

Regarding the Chair stating whether participants’ views “represent
the consensus view of their Constituency,” that should be based on
what the participants tell the team or claim. If they are claiming to
represent a stakeholder group or constituency then whether or not they
have determined that group's consensus view is relevant. If they haven't
yet had the time, that should be stated and the Council may consider
allowing more time after the report/recommendations are delivered so
that such consensus views can be ascertained.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, January 27, 2009 11:57 am
To: <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>,
<gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks Liz.  I have some comments on these.
 
·         Decision Making:  I would like clarity on the difference
between these two possible judgment calls, to be made by the Chair, as
these could be interpreted equally (in plain English):  
o        Rough consensus position where a small minority disagrees but
most agree
o        Strong support, but significant opposition
·         I know we don’t want to use the words ‘vote’ or
‘voting’, but it might help to quantify “small minority” and
“significant” in percentage terms.  Also should delete the word
“strong” as that is not an objective term.
·         I might be more in favor of simply merging these two
categories, as we did in the IDN Working Group and Fast Flux Working
Group, particularly if we can’t clarify the differences 
·         Following those bullets, the text indicates the Chair also
will state whether participants’ views “represent the consensus view
of their Constituency.”  Assuming the Chair will consider the
participant’s view on that question, this is problematic since it can
take three weeks or longer to get anything like a “consensus view”
of my constituency, under the Rules of our Charter.  I believe most
other constituencies have formal processes before declaring a consensus
view, as well.  So it probably does not make sense for this statement to
be necessary as to every position, unless we are going to build in
adequate time and process for going to our constituencies periodically.
 
Thanks,
Mike

From: owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:04 PM
To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: [gnso-ppsc] Updated interim PPSC work team rules

 
To all PPSC members, Working Groups team members and PDP team members:
(and copying Chuck Gomes as the Operations Steering Committee Chair)
 
Attached and posted on all appropriate wiki pages are updated interim
work team rules, reflecting modifications suggested during and following
last Wednesday’s PPSC call.  These rules have been designated
“interim” to allow the work teams the opportunity to suggest
modifications.  Please note new redlines to the Statements of Interest
section, the section on restricting participation and the section
dealing with modifications to see the most significant changes. 
 
The wiki pages are: 
https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?policy_process_steering_committee_ppsc
https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?working_group_team
https://st.icann.org/gnso_transition/index.cgi?pdp_team
 
Your suggestions are most welcome.
 
Thanks, Liz