[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consensus Process concerns -- settling on designations

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

After today's call, I'm very concerned about the co-chairs' suggested
path forward, which I disagree with.

In particular, page 9 of the working group guidelines talks about a
"recommended method" for discovering the consensus level designation
on recommendations.

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf

"The recommended method for discovering the consensus level
designation on recommendations should work as follows:
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."

It's unclear when the deadline for "all issues to have been raised,
understood and discussed" is, and how the Co-Chairs intend to use
those discussions to make the designation.

For example, some of the proposals were put forth in their final form
just in the past 24 hours (e.g. Zak's, my proposal #6, Paul
Tattersfield's proposal). Based on all the discussion that has taken
place, none of these new options have received much disagreement or
opposition, and indeed there might be "Full consensus" if one goes by
the standard of page 8 of the above document.

The process is also supposed to be iterative.

Instead, we appear to be heading to the use of yet another anonymous
poll, rather than having full working group discussions on these
matters. Polls are supposed to be "rare", and also "care should be
taken in using polls that they do not become votes." And the operating
procedures appear to be against the use of anonymity in polls, saying
(at the bottom of page 9) "However, in all other cases.....their name
must be explicitly linked, ****especially in those cases where polls
where (sic) taken.****" (emphasis added)

So, not only do we appear to be heading to use of a poll, I'm
concerned that those polls will be misused as votes, and not attach
names to the votes/positions either.

Page 10 of the procedures even says clearly that "Consensus calls
should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this reason,
****should take place on the designated mailing list***** to ensure
that all Working Group members have the opportunity to fully
participate in the consensus process." (emphasis added)

The use of an anonymous poll hosted on a 3rd party platform seems
inconsistent with that consensus happening on the mailing list.

Furthermore, let's suppose "several participants" (language of page
10) openly disagree with a designation. How will the Co-Chairs answer
that? It appears to me that anonymous polls will by necessity be
pointed to as votes under that scenario, i.e. they'll say "well, we
had 10 people in the poll support that position, and 5 people not
support it." Polls would turn into votes that are given more weight
than those who actually participated actively on the calls and on the
mailing list, fully articulating their positions and engaging in the
debate. That does not seem correct to me.

In my view, we should perhaps do things a different way. I would
suggest we start 6 new topics organized directly on the mailing list
(as recommended on the working group guidelines) for (separate subject
for each thread):

(a) Option A
(b) Option B
(c) Option C
(d) Zak's proposal finalized today (can call it Option D)
(e) my proposal of last night, final language of Option #6 (call it
Option E, or can incorporate it into Option C if the backers of that
proposal saw it as part of Option C)
(f) Paul Tattersfield's proposal of today (can call it Option F, or
break it up into subparts, e.g. Mediation aspect as F1, another aspect
as F2, etc.)

Then we can have a robust, open and transparent discussion that
everyone can participate in (in parallel with the weekly calls). Those
who support an option can have a dialog with those who don't support
it. Positions will evolve and people's views might change based on
those discussions. That contrasts starkly with "polls" which are
static, non-evolving and just a snapshot of a "position statement".
Levels of consensus will be directly observable in those discussions.

Some of the options above are not mutually exclusive, either, and it
seems that the proposed poll doesn't reflect that. e.g. one can be in
favour of Zak's proposal *and* Option 6 and Option A, yet that
wouldn't be captured if someone just picks a single option.

Also, a multi-phase approach might also make sense. If there was a
broad consensus for Zak's proposal in a first phase  (referring these
quirks of process which affect registrant's rights to the RPM PDP),
then it trumps the other options. It seems that question should be
decided first. If there wasn't a broad consensus for it, then the next
step would be to check whether the other options have a consensus or
not.

We ran out of time today to fully address these process concerns, so
I'd appreciate the input of others who might be concerned, especially
those who could not attend the call.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/