Re: [gnso-raa-b] (1) Revised draft initial report (sections I-IV) (2) Section V (next steps)

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve

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.,

Regards

Michele


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 
> recorded.
> 
> 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 
> (optional).
> 
> 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 
> proposal_Redline.pdf>> 
> <<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
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845