RE: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri
We should be cautious of providing an easy route for the Board or others to
be able to tweak policy. A few people have already expressed concern that
this has already been done, particularly with new gTLDs. Having a higher
threshold say 65%, is unlikely to be a problem in the vast majority of cases
particularly with the situations you offer below, but it would provide that
additional level of protection. 
50%+1  may not do that, particularly as the existing membership structures
dilute as a result of many qualifying members having wide and diverse
business interests as a result of the introduction of new gTLDs.
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 08 May 2014 22:12
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Working Groups for non PDP purposes


Hi,

Why wouldn't the 50%+1 be enough?  That is the threshold for all non by-laws
determined votes.  I think it is higher than some PDP thresholds.

I am thinking of this at first for resolving any of those issues that are
sent by the Board with tight deadlines where we need bottom-up opinion, and
I think one of the major recommendations they could make, other than
answering questions is the recommendation to council of whether the issue is
policy or not.  If it is policy, then we need to go to PDP and the WG can
recommend an issues report.

Just trying to find a way to use the tools we've got to do the work we get.

I am not trying to pre-determine the recommendations of the P&I, but it will
be a while before we have their recommendations.  And possibly we can
provide them with some real life examples of what to recommend or not
recommend.

avri


On 08-May-14 16:47, Tony Holmes wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
>