[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] for your review -- draft motion for the Council
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class="">hi all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Marika has drafted a motion for us to take a look at, which is attached. there are two things that still need to be filled in.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- the date (again, no pressure but it would be nice to hit the next Council meeting if we can)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- the level of consensus</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">i think we're headed for either "consensus" or "full consensus" right now (thanks for your notes Avri and Amr, they were much appreciated). but again, no pressure. it would be helpful to hear from anybody who objects Really Soon Now -- like by mid-day US time, 19:00 UTC, today. there's also nothing magic about that timing, it's just intended to give us a little time between now and the hard deadline for the next Council agenda (23:59 UTC Monday) to try fix anything that might come up.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">thanks,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">mikey</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">PS. here's the snippet from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines that describes the process (determining the level of consensus) that we're going through right now.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">-- Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">-- Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">-- Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">-- Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn’t strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">-- Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows:</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">ii. After the group has discussed the Chair’s estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be:</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">- A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur.</div><div class="">- It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.</div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">Based upon the WG’s needs, the Chair may direct that WG participants do not have to have their name explicitly associated with any Full Consensus or Consensus view/position. However, in all other cases and in those cases where a group member represents the minority viewpoint, their name must be explicitly linked, especially in those cases where polls where taken.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true"> <br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; " class="">PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com";>www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)</span> </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div></div></div></body></html> Attachment:
Motion on the Adoption of the Thick Whois Final Report and Recommendations - 17 October 2013.doc <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div class=""><div></div> <br class=""></div></body></html> Attachment:
smime.p7s |