RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

["Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that all views should be reported, but it is possible that use
of the terms "majority" and "minority" may not be accurate. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:27 PM
To: PRO WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

hi,


> > What is the definition of a minority report?
>
> The Names Council Rules of Procedure specifies that any Consensus 
> Policy Recommendations of a Task Force must include "a fair statement 
> of points in opposition and a substantive analysis of their merits and

> the intensity of the opposition." Avri can confirm this perhaps.
>
> > Can anyone file one if they do not agree with the majority?
>
> That is my understanding.

I am sure that i am  not in the position to "affirm" for that would take
staff or someone else with authority of some sort.  But i believe the
answer would be yes. I think the statement you quoted is part of the
story, but i think it goes beyond just including a statement but the
author of the report.

- though there doesn't seem to be any content in the by-laws that speaks
directly to rules for WGs, there are rules concerning Task Force and non
Task Force PDP processes.

- the WGs are, to my mind, extensions of the PDP process at least when
they are spun out of a PDP process, in this case the new gTLD process.
(i am not sure this reasoning would apply to WG spun directly out of the
council, but that isn't the question here)

- as derivative of the PDP committee, i think the WG would inherit the
rules that apply to the PDP process.

- the by-law also require:

> all viewpoints expressed by Council members during the PDP must be 
> included in the Board Report.


- "all" would seem to include, at the very least, minority reports  
from all council members who wished to express one.  And while this  
point mentions the Board report and not one of the intermediate  
reports, I think the only way you get views expressed by council  
members during a PDP into the board report is to include them in  
intermediate reports.

That seems to me as far as the rules go, though there are others that  
could be seen a relating indirectly. There is, e.g., a rule that all  
observers in the council have the right of full participation, except  
voting.  Even though this rule is for SO and AC members who are  
formal observers in the council itself, so far as i can tell this is,  
by practice, extended to all observers in all groups that are derived  
from the council.  By this extension i assume that that non council  
members of WG would have the same ability to append minority  
reports.  It certainly seems to be the prevailing practice in my time  
on the council.

A lot seems to hinge on practice that grows out of a few rules and an  
attitude of allowing a liberal interpretation that permits things  
that seem within the spirit of the by-laws as long as they are not  
specifically prohibited.

a.


On 24 maj 2007, at 23.46, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> > What is the definition of a minority report?
>
> The Names Council Rules of Procedure specifies that any Consensus  
> Policy Recommendations of a Task Force must include "a fair  
> statement of points in opposition and a substantive analysis of  
> their merits and the intensity of the opposition." Avri can confirm  
> this perhaps.
>
> > Can anyone file one if they do not agree with the majority?
>
> That is my understanding.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
> From: "Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, May 24, 2007 4:28 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  "Mike Rodenbaugh"
> <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> What is the definition of a minority report?  Can anyone file one  
> if they do not agree with the majority?
>
> From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro- 
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:58 PM
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh
> Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
>
> This is the current draft? I thought Liz was working on an update.  
> So there will be no indication of who supports what? I'm not trying  
> to be an a$$ about that, I just think it's unusual not to and I  
> believe it will be an important question raised by the Council.  
> Also, will minority reports be included? I submitted one on Saturday.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, May 23, 2007 7:54 pm
> To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Kristina, this looks really good and I much appreciate all your  
> effort.  I have a few suggested edits in attached doc, and three  
> substantive issues for potential discussion and clarification.  First,
> 4.1.4:  Agreement that if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise  
> Process RPM, then it SHOULD restrict eligible Legal Rights in such  
> a manner as to discourage abusive registration .  [I don't  
> understand this 2d clause.  Does this mean Registries should narrow  
> the scope of rights that can be protected, to discourage gaming of  
> the RPM process?  I don't think there was Agreement on that.]
>
> Second, sec 4.1.3 and 4.1.6 seem generally the same principle, I  
> would delete 4.1.6 or characterize it as an Alternative View.
> Third,
> 4.2.4  Support for the principle that if a new gTLD elects to use a  
> Sunrise Process as its RPM and second-level names are not awarded  
> on a First-Come, First-Served basis, then competing applicants MAY  
> be provided with an opportunity to reach an allocation decision  
> between/among themselves.  [I think there was Support that such an  
> opportunity SHOULD (or even MUST?) be provided.  I see no reason  
> not to provide it.]
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro- 
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfRosette, Kristina
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:31 PM
> To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
> All,
> Attached is the current draft of the report.  Here's what changed  
> since last night's version.
> Added Kelly's Introduction.
> Added definitions.  I used the definitions I suggested this morning  
> minus my subsequent revision to RPM.  I indicated that there has  
> not been discussion of the Rights of Others section.
> Created a fee-specific section in Outcomes.   All fee-related  
> principles and proposals are here.  Intro makes clear there are no  
> levels of support.
> Created a new RPM section in Outcomes.  All new RPM proposals  
> (Peter's, Mike's, and mine) are here.  Intro makes clear that  
> there's been no decision and there's outstanding work.
> Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support, Alternative  
> View .  I used the following methodology.  I started with the chart  
> I circulated last night and re-characterized the levels of support  
> based on the postings today.  If only one person objected to a  
> proposal, I characterized the support as Agreement.  If only one  
> person objected to a proposal and provided their own suggestion, I  
> characterized support for the original proposal as Agreement and  
> identified the objector's suggestion as Alternative View.  I  
> characterized the level of support as Agreement ONLY if there was  
> unanimity OR there was only one objection.   Please check these  
> carefully.  Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT intentional.  (Avri, I  
> integrated your comments in #16 in way that I think you would find  
> agreeable.  Please check 4.2.5))  Finally, I listed in Outstanding  
> work everything that had not been substantively discussed and/or  
> had not resulted in level of support.
> -*-
> The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not be  
> consistent.  I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect  
> agreed-upon terms.  I'm sure there's something that I did or did  
> not do that is not mentioned here.  Any and all omissions are  
> unintentional.
> K
> <<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07 17_29.DOC>>
>