Re: [gnso-ppsc] CALL FOR CONSENSUS: Revised Final GNSO Working Group Guidelines
On 20 Dec 2010, at 10:34, Anthony Harris wrote: > 1. Do you accept this report to be final and ready to be transmitted to the > GNSO Council? Yes with a caution. There is a possibility that comes out of the NCSG Policy Committee review of the document that it might not go far enough in making recommendations about what to do when the work drags on long beyond a charter's expected timeframe and the group of those working dwindles down to a handful or less. This is despite the content in 3.1-3 and 220.127.116.11, which I did bring up. I have not been asked to halt the document going through on this basis and thus am responding that it is ready, but am mentioning the caution that may come up in the Council. It should be noted that this issue did not come up before in any of the comments or discussions and is in response to recent events with various council projects. I should also note, as an individual commentator, that if and when there is a public review, I will consider adding a comment relating to the role of the chair and his or her relation to the chartering organization. This despite my having been on the WGWT because while from an IETF perspective (my formative volunteer organization) I had just made the assumption that WG chairs should not be Chartering body members (similar to the relations between IESG area directors and WG chairs) except in emergency cases. I see that we did not cover the issue adequately and I do take responsibility, mea culpa mea culpa, for not having done so at the appropriate time. As I was a member of the group that sent the report forward to the PPSC, I do not believe I have the right to prevent it being sent to the council at this point because of something I failed to do adequately. But given a chance to make public comment I will bring up the issue. It is also possible that the NCSG will bring up the subject in its consideration of the PPSC's submission. > 2. Do you believe we should recommend to the GNSO Council that they commence > a public comment period prior to acting on the recommendations contained > within the report? No. I believe the PPSC should just send the document, in both redline and clean to the Council with a report of what has been done since the last community review. I do not believe that we should make any recommendation about whether they review it before or after a community review that they may or may not decide on, as that is up to them. They might decide to do a council review first to make sure they think we have done due diligence on processing the comments and have processed all the issues that they think are important, e.g. they might wish to confirm that this is ready for community review for themselves. Or they may wish to send it back to the PPSC based on other questions and issues, at which point the PPSC would have to decide on how to handle the question, in the PPSC or in the WGWT or some new third way. Additionally while we are somewhat more lax in other groups, with the working group actually sometimes writing the motions, I believe that in a policy process group, we need to be very strict in the separation of powers. Thus I feel that we should just deliver the information and let the council figure out what it needs to do about it. As for Staff recommendation on whether the changes where sufficiently extensive or substantive to warrant a new community review, that is independent of our delivery and, something that the council can, and possibly should, request of the relevant staff members - again it is not for us to relay staff viewpoints, though of course we value them as well. Also, the NCSG has not had a chance to make a decision on a new primary presentative to the PPSC, but Konstantinos in his new role as NCUC chair has indicated that he does not have the time for this group as well. Which at least moves me up to secondary. I have not heard from Gabriel yet to be able to gauge his continued participation and after the Christmas holiday will press that updated membership in the group will be dealt with. a.