ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-raa-b]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-raa-b] (1) Revised draft initial report (sections I-IV) (2) Section V (next steps)
  • From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 05:57:11 -0700

With apologies for any inconvenience, you should see attached the
redline version of the revised draft initial report (sections I-IV were
edited, except for the subteam A portions).  
 
Steve Metalitz 
 
 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:47 PM
To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-raa-b] (1) Revised draft initial report (sections I-IV)
(2) Section V (next steps)



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>> 

Attachment: Draft Initial Report -051210 PM version (2692116).DOC
Description: Draft Initial Report -051210 PM version (2692116).DOC



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy