RE: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If Council were to consider this as a way of addressing this type of issue
suggest the voting threshold to charter such groups should be made
particularly high. 
There would clearly be a need to ensure its not abused, or used as a way to
work around or revisit existing agreed policy, or as a method of driving
issues that have only a modicum of support towards a vote.

Whilst I appreciate that isn't the case now, this is an issue that needs to
be considered by the P&I WG.

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 08 May 2014 20:56
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes


Hi,

Al I am saying is that we don't need to wait for P&I and could implement one
of the quick working groups anytime we decide it is the right thing to do.

I especially point out:


6.4 Applicability
The GNSO Council or any of its sub-groups may decide to utilize a WG anytime
they think that community wide participation is advisable for resolving
issues. It should be emphasized that WGs are not intended to apply to policy
development processes solely.

avri


On 08-May-14 15:46, Mary Wong wrote:
> Hi all, this distinction has been discussed in the Policy & 
> Implementation Working Group, which is currently beginning to explore 
> possible criteria and other processes that may be suitable to use when 
> the GNSO is asked, or wishes, to provide ³policy guidance² outside a 
> PDP. In addition, it may be useful to note that the current WG 
> Guidelines are not limited to just PDP WGs; as Avri noted, these WGs 
> would not follow the Bylaws-mandated PDP steps of Issue Report etc.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 3:26 PM
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes
> 
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>> thanks for your e-mail - actually a good thought!
>>
>> Best
>> Thomas
>>
>> Am 08.05.2014 um 20:40 schrieb Avri Doria:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I happen to be re-reading the GNSO Operating procedures in 
>>> preparation for one of those newcomer webinars.  Always good to have a
refresher.
>>>
>>> I see nothing in it that prohibits us from creating a Working Group 
>>> to resolve any issue we wish to resolve, even if it is not a PDP based
Wg.
>>>
>>> So my question becomes, why don't we quickly charter WGs to resolve 
>>> any of these interrupt issues.  We can charter a group with a narrow 
>>> question, a time limit and the resources to make a recommendation to 
>>> the council.  That would at least give the council the ability to 
>>> then take a vote based on a bottom-up process that looked into the
issue.
>>>
>>> Just a thought. This could give us a basis to work on.
>>>
>>> We might need some SCI assistance, not sure yet, to refine a couple 
>>> of points to make this something that can occur quickly, such as 
>>> voting on such a charter between meetings (the voting between 
>>> meetings is already request already pending in the SCI), but unless 
>>> I am mistaken we have no barrier to using our WG guidelines to 
>>> actually get bottom-up work done outside of PDP constraints and time 
>>> tables.  Also, unless a WG is a PDP WG, it does not need to include 
>>> the various stages of issues report, initial report etc.  It can go 
>>> from a GNSO Council Leadership constructed Charter, to an emergency 
>>> meeting to vote on formation in less that the gap between two meetings.
>>>
>>> While this would not apply to creating policy which still requires a 
>>> PDP, it could well resolve issues of whether something was 
>>> consistent with policy.  And could certainly work on issues to do 
>>> with governance and transition.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>> avri
>>
>>