RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff,

There are no rules on the voting methodology to approve charters in a drafting 
team.   We are operating under the old PDP rules (See Annex A: 
http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA ), that include no terms 
applicable to the voting thresholds necessary to approve a charter for a PDP.   
  

The PDP-WG working group dedicated to developing new rules for PDP working 
groups has also not produced guidelines with respect to voting procedures to 
approve a charter.  See: 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05feb09-en.pdf).
 Instead,  it has produced the methodology (described below) to apply to 
working group deliberations once the PDP has commenced.  Please note that these 
guidelines have not yet been approved by the GNSO Council, and are on the 
agenda for the GNSO Council's 10 March meeting in Nairobi.


Best regards,

Margie 

__________________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
___________________

 
1.1.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 can 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. [1] <#_ftn1> 

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:10 AM
To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5



Maybe I am still trying to figure out the voting structure but since this is a 
GNSO PDP why wouldn't the same voting structure flow down to the DT? IS there a 
specific rule that states that ? 

Could we get a formal response from Staff. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:02 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5


Given that DT membership/participation has been uneven (unequal?), a one 
member/one vote system does not seem appropriate.  For the same reason, using 
the Council voting thresshold also seems inappropriate.  

I would prefer that it go to Council with both iterarations.

I am working on a more detailed message w/r/t IPC support of objective 5, but 
will be offline afterwards.

k 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

Well actually that's an interesting point, which Jeff has also made directly to 
me.

I was going about this using the simplest system I could think of, which was a 
one member/one vote system for DT members.

This would mean we currently have deadlock until Brian gives us the registry's 
preference (can we get that soon Brian please?).

But there is also a case for using the same thresholds as those used by the 
GNSO Council.

At this stage, I think the fairest way is either for the DT as a whole to 
determine which system it wants to apply or for us to go back to the Council 
and explain that the DT was unable to reach consensus on Obj 5 and that the 
Council should determine which version goes into the charter. I for one am not 
in favour of this second alternative, as I think it makes us look unable to 
reach a final determination. But I do not want to argue this forever.

There is another solution: the DT could decide that I, as coordinator, am 
allowed to speak my mind and vote on this as an independent member of the team 
:)

Stéphane

Le 25 févr. 2010 à 18:43, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> That's at the Council level, not the DT level. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:42 PM
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Avri Doria
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
> 
> 
> Right, my understanding is that if one House obtains full support and another 
> House has divided support (NCSG on one side, CSG on the other) that we still 
> have the required supermajority. If both Houses are divided, however, then we 
> need to find compromise language. 
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All 
> Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van 
>> Gelder
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:32 AM
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, we seem to have a deadlock situation right now with the NCSG and 
>> the RrSG supporting the Milton/Avri Obj 5 and the BC and the IPC 
>> supporting the Kristina Obj 5.
>> 
>> This could be resolved by the RySG coming out in support of one 
>> version or the other, but it's now past deadline and there hasn't 
>> been a reaction from the registries.
>> 
>> Brian, could you let us know which version the registries support 
>> please?
>> 
>> I would then suggest we move ahead as we had planned to: the majority 
>> takes it. I would also suggest, as this is pretty evenly split up, 
>> that a not be included in the charter explaining which version of obj
>> 5 was supported by whom. This could then be sent back to Council 
>> as-is, and for them to make a final determination.
>> 
>> Margie, were you able to act on Avri's earlier proposal to bring the 
>> proposed agenda inline with recent developments? Do you have a 
>> definitive version of the charter that I can take back to the Council?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 25 févr. 2010 à 15:48, Avri Doria a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> so how do we resolve this split in the consensus?
>>> 
>>> does the council vote on the version of Objective 5 they like best?
>>> or does the charter linger in the DT until we reach a consensus?
>>> 
>>> if the later, who can suggest a compromise wording?
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>