Re: [gnso-raa-b] (1) Revised draft initial report (sections I-IV) (2) Section V (next steps)
- To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] (1) Revised draft initial report (sections I-IV) (2) Section V (next steps)
- From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 23:11:46 +0000
I probably won't make the call next Monday, as I will be travelling.
With respect to the edits etc., I'll try to have a look over those and send on
any comments / thoughts etc.,
On 12 May 2010, at 22:47, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> Subteam B participants,
> Attached please find a revised version of our draft initial report. I have
> accepted the great majority of changes circulated by Statton just before our
> meeting Monday, some of them with modifications. I hope that for sections
> I-IV of the report (EXCEPT those sections referring to the work of subteam A,
> I tried not to touch those!) this is nearly done.
> I am actually enclosing two versions, one with redlines (which I hope will
> enable you to see which of Statton's edits I did not accept, or modified),
> and one "clean" version which I hope will be more readable!
> Regarding section V (next steps): I have not made any changes to this in the
> initial draft report. We discussed this issue at length on Monday and did
> not reach any agreement. The "line in the sand," as Tim described it on the
> call, is whether or not there will be non-registrar, non-staff "observers" in
> the negotiation process that we recommend. As I stated on the call, my
> current plan as chair is to recognize the "observer" version as having
> "strong support," with the "no observer" position representing "significant
> opposition." I draw this verbiage from the draft "Standard Methodology for
> Making Decisions" document furnished to me by staff. We are not bound by
> this document, both because we are not a working group, and because this
> document is part of a draft which has not yet been finally approved; but in
> default of any other method I suggest we use it. If, of course, this is
> where we end up, I assume that both sides will prepare brief summaries of
> their positions for inclusion in the report. The two divergent bullet lists
> on next steps are attached for your ready reference.
> The door was certainly left open on our call for other approaches on next
> steps, so I encourage you to bring these forward on the list before the end
> of the week.
> As a reminder, our next call (and likely the final one before completion of
> the initial draft report) will be next Monday, May 17, at 2000 UTC. Please
> watch for confirming e-mails from the staff.
> Steve Metalitz
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
> <<DRAFT RAA next steps proposal 042910 (2676221).DOC>> <<DRAFT RAA next steps
> <<Draft Initial Report - 051210 Clean version (2692805).DOC>> <<Draft Initial
> Report -051210 PM version (2692116).DOC>>
> <DRAFT RAA next steps proposal 042910 (2676221).DOC><DRAFT RAA next steps
> proposal_Redline.pdf><Draft Initial Report - 051210 Clean version
> (2692805).DOC><Draft Initial Report -051210 PM version (2692116).DOC>
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845