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