[gnso-raa-b] At Tim Ruiz's request

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

 I am circulating the e-mail text below at the request of Tim Ruiz.  I sent it 
to Phil Corwin before our most recent call, along with other efforts I made to 
encourage the less active members of our drafting team to weigh in with their 
views on the issue then before us (regarding task 3, next steps).   Tim states 
(in the e-mail chain below) that my doing so was "completely inappropriate."  I 
disagree, and I believe my e-mail, while colloquial in tone, was factual in 
content, with the exception of the statement that "the results [of the last RAA 
negotiation] were certainly unsatisfactory." That is my opinion, and if it was 
inappropriate of me to express it in this e-mail, I apologize.  I leave it to 
those on the call on Monday (or who have reviewed the mp3 recording) and who 
heard the views presented to judge for themselves whether this e-mail was an 
attempt to "stack the deck on consensus," as Tim states, or to "get more voices 
into the conversation," as my e-mail states.    

(Phil has told me he has no objection to releasing to the full list the e-mail 
I sent him.)

Steve Metalitz     

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:31 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder_
Subject: RE: Recent email - stacking the consensus deck?

Steve,

The email:

------------------
I know you have been rather a silent participant in the RAA subteam B calls 
recently, but I'd encourage you to phone in and speak up on next Monday's call 
(4 pm EDT).  As you know the first order of business is task 3, our 
recommendations for "next steps," and the approaches on the table are starkly 
different.  The question boils down to whether anyone else will be in the room 
when the staff and the registrars negotiate the next round of amendments.  Last 
time, the answer was "no," and the results were certainly unsatisfactory.  I am 
not sure that anyone on the drafting team other than the registrars will 
advocate the same approach this time, but in any case it would be useful to get 
more voices into the conversation.  

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns re the above.  

Steve
------------------


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Recent email - stacking the consensus deck?
From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 4:37 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder_ <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

Tim, 
 
I am not sure what e-mail you are referring to.  I know of one that
could fit that description although if so I think you have
mischaracterized it.  I have asked the recipient of that e-mail if there
is any objection to my sharing it more widely.  But if you can specify
what you are talking about that would be helpful.  
 
Steve 

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:34 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
Subject: Recent email - stacking the consensus deck?



Steve,
 
It's been pointed out to me that you have sent an email to certain
non-active participants of the RAA-B WG encouraging them to be on
Monday's call and voice their support for letting others in the room
when Staff and registrars negotiate.
 
The Chair should be, for the most part, a neutral facilitator and not
advocating one view or position over another. In those cases where the
Chair does speak up and voice either a personal or SG view or opinion,
it should be appropriately framed as such. But that distinction cannot
be made when sending an email like the one I've been made aware of just
to stakeholders that have a specific view. I doubt highly that you sent
similar emails to registrars or others that hold a different view
encouraging them to be on the call noting similar but opposing concerns.
To me, this seems like an attempt to stack the deck on the consensus
call. This is completely inappropriate since, as Chair, you are the one
that will be making that call.
 
I've copied only the Council Liaison and not the group as a whole, but I
believe at the least you should inform the WG that you sent the email
and affirm that your evaluation of consensus will not be affected by
this error in judgement.
 
 
Tim