RE: [gnso-raa-b] (1) Revised draft initial report (sections I-IV) (2) Section V (next steps)
I have only some minor suggestions for clarity. Attached reflects them
(made to the clean version Steve circulated.) The report will need a
quick staff run-through for consistency (e.g., subteam B vs SubTeam-B,
high priority vs. Medium Priority) and the like.
K
________________________________
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:
KR suggestions to 051210 Clean version.DOC
|