[council] RE: SCI Charter Revisions

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ron,

 

Thank-you again for this letter.  As you will no doubt by now be aware, the
Council did discuss the SCI and the important questions you have raised in
your communication below.

 

Essentially the Council agreed the following:

1.       That the Charter of the SCI should be modified to confirm that the
SCI is a standing committee and; 

2.      That the Council would like the SCI to undertake the work to propose
the above and any other changes it deems necessary and then to submit these
to the Council and;
3.      That the SCI should not propose to modify the decision making
methodology (away from full consensus) as the GNSO Council will consider
this particular issue further.
Noting: That should the decision be made to move from full consensus in
future, that should be a decision for the GNSO Council.

I trust that you will find this response and the associated guidance
helpful.  

In addition, please could you convey my thanks on behalf of the Council to
the SCI for their work to date and on-going contribution.

Best wishes,

 

Jonathan

 

 

Jonathan Robinson

Chair

ICANN GNSO Council

 

 <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx> jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx

Tel: +44 (0)20 7993 6103

skype: jonathan.m.r

 

 

 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 02 September 2013 03:44
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: SCI Charter Revisions
Importance: High

 

Dear Jonathan,

 

I understand that the GNSO Council will be discussing the SCI Charter
revisions on its next call scheduled for September 5th, 2013.  At its
meeting on August 6th, 2013, the SCI members discussed the outcomes from the
GNSO Sessions in Durban on this matter and decided that it would be helpful
to more formally seek guidance from the Council with respect to the next
steps for the SCI Charter.  One aspect, in particular, based on the
discussion in Durban, seems clear, i.e. that the GNSO Council would like the
SCI to continue as a 'standing committee'. We would like the Charter to
reflect that, should that indeed be the case. (I refer you to the email on
this topic that I sent you on 08 July 2013, just prior to Durban.)

 

At the Wrap-Up Session the GNSO Council also discussed the SCI process for
decision-making ('full consensus' versus Standard Methodology for Making
Decisions).  The SCI understands that the Council agreed to consider this
issue further on its mailing list and Council members were encouraged to
share their views in support of one or the other option.  We now understand
that Jeff Neuman will provide background information as to why the SCI was
initially required to operate under full consensus.  At the SCI's August 6th
meeting and since then on our mailing list, members expressed an interest in
helping guide the discussion for the Council as to why SCI members feel
there should or should not be full consensus.   

 

The impetus behind the recommendation to reconsider using "full or unanimous
consensus" or "rough or near consensus" came from my request, as in-coming
SCI Chair, to review and update the SCI Charter, as well as the SCI Wiki
since the Committee now had over two years of experience behind it and the
language in both the document and on the Wiki was outdated.  I also noted at
the time, and do so here again for Council's edification, the SCI Charter is
further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The response within
the SCI came in two forms: Those that feel that being forced to come to
unanimous consensus "improves our product" because it ensures that the
Committee dedicates the time to explore all points of view and works to find
stronger outcomes; the arguments against full consensus included concerns
about potentially using the SCI in a way that would drive substantive
outcomes in the GNSO, whether intentionally or not, by pushing through
decisions on procedure/process to meet an immediate need, or that any member
choosing to remain steadfast in opposition could capture the SCI process.
All SCI members however respect that balanced discussions result in
consensus - in some form - leading to better appreciation of each member's
contributions, more confidence in the Committee itself and in the process.  

 

The SCI has the luxury of not having to work under any time constraints on
procedural and process issues (rather than substantive issues). Within the
Standard Methodology for Making Decisions and the five forms of consent
defined in the Guidelines, 'rough or near consent' (defined as "a position
where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows
'full or unanimous consent'.  We are all aware of the ramifications of full
consensus, having worked under this standard since ICANN's inception.  'Near
consensus', provides the basis for Committee members to argue for their
respective stakeholder group's position, while it also provides for written
rationale entered into the public record for any and all dissenting
opinion(s), thus providing more context to the GNSO Council to assist it in
coming to its own determinations.  Notably, the SCI does not make any
determinations other than to propose recommendations to the GNSO Council,
which it, in turn, discusses, accepts, modifies or rejects, as Council deems
appropriate. 

 

On behalf of the SCI, we hope that this background information will inform
your discussions, however the SCI would be happy to further brief the
Council on the Charter and consensus issues, if so requested.  

 

We would also be grateful to know as soon as possible if the Council, as the
Chartering organization, would prefer to take on the task of revising the
SCI Charter or pass that responsibility to the SCI once it has made its
determination on the consensus issue. The SCI stands ready to assist in this
task in whichever way the Council deems appropriate.

 

We await your guidance.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ron Andruff

SCI Chair

 

 

 

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

www.rnapartners.com