[Gnso-review-wg] CONSENSUS CALL: Recommendations 24/25 GNSO Review Implementation Charter

[Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben]

Thanks very much Julie,

sorry for coming in late with one question re the WG determination on 
Rec 24. As it is supposed to be the WG's (and not staff's) determination 
I wonder whether under 4. staff's note re combining current and historic 
information on one website could be transformed to a WG note or even a 
WG rec. Final opinions could be shared tomorrow.

The wording of the 1. determination on Rec. 25 isn't fully clear to me. 
Doesn't it mean: That the processes are detailed above in Recommendation 
24 and that they are effective and
accessible. So I turned the word "as" to "are" and removed "suggests".

Both comments shouldn't have any impact on the consensus.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



Am 19.06.2017 um 22:47 schrieb Julie Hedlund:
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Per the action items and notes below from the call on 08 June (see 
> below), and following a one-week review of the attached charter, this 
> is a */consensus call/* for the GNSO Review Implementation Charter for 
> Recommendations 24 and 25.  For information and guidance on the 
> decision-making process please see the background below.
>
> The last version of the charter is attached for your review and posted 
> on the wiki at: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Consensus+Calls. 
> As noted in the attached charter, recommendations 24 and 25 state:
>
> _Recommendation 24_: That the GNSO Council and Stakeholder Groups and 
> Constituencies adhere to the published process for applications for 
> new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application 
> satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, 
> subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is 
> admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including 
> historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full 
> transparency of decision-making.
>
> _Recommendation 25_: That the GNSO Council commission the development 
> of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing 
> to establish a new Constituency.
>
> After discussing this recommendation at length during multiple 
> meetings the WG determined that the recommendation had been 
> implemented as stated in the charter based on activities that have 
> already occurred.
>
> Working Group members are requested to respond to this consensus call 
> in */two weeks, by COB Monday, 03 July./* For a list of Working Group 
> members and the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies represented 
> see:https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/WG+members+and+mailing+list.
>
> Please note that if no objections are raised, we will take that to 
> mean there is approval of the charter as written.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> _Background on Decision-Making from the Working Group Charter:_
>
> Per the Working Group Charter at 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Charter?preview=/61610405/61610404/gnso-review-charter-21jul16-en-1.pdf the 
> WG conducts decision-making via consensus.  Specifically, the Charter 
> states:
>
> “In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the GNSO 
> Review Working Group shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may 
> make a call for Consensus. If making such a call, they should always 
> make reasonable efforts to involve all Stakeholder 
> Groups/Constituencies appointed Members of the Working Group. The 
> chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having 
> one of the following designations:
>
> 1. Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the 
> recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred 
> to as Unanimous Consensus.
>
> 2. Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but 
> most agree.”
>
> The Charter further states: “In the case of recommended changes to the 
> GNSO Operating Procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws, only recommendations 
> that have achieved full consensus of the WG shall be forwarded to the 
> GNSO Council. All other recommendations shall be forwarded if they 
> achieve either consensus or full consensus of the WG.”
>
> In the case of this consensus call, as the implementation does not 
> result in any new recommended changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures 
> and/or ICANN Bylaws, the recommendation will be decided via consensus, 
> although if there are no objections it may be that the decision will 
> be full consensus.
>
> *From: *<gnso-review-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund 
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:14 AM
> *To: *"gnso-review-wg at icann.org" <gnso-review-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-review-wg] REMINDER FOR REVIEW: Recommendations 24/25 
> GNSO Review Implementation Charter
>
> Dear GNSO Review Working Group members,
>
> Per the action items and notes below from the call on 08 June, please 
> review the attached revised GNSO Review Implementation Charter for 
> Recommendations 24/25 in Word and PDF with changes highlighted as 
> redlines.  As noted in the attached charter, these are the 
> recommendations for implementation:
>
> _Recommendation 24_: That the GNSO Council and Stakeholder Groups and 
> Constituencies adhere to the published process for applications for 
> new Constituencies. That the ICANN Board in assessing an application 
> satisfy itself that all parties have followed the published process, 
> subject to which the default outcome is that a new Constituency is 
> admitted. That all applications for new Constituencies, including 
> historic applications, be published on the ICANN website with full 
> transparency of decision-making.
>
> _Recommendation 25_: That the GNSO Council commission the development 
> of, and implement, guidelines to provide assistance for groups wishing 
> to establish a new Constituency.
>
> Working Group members are requested to respond to this review in */one 
> week, by COB Thursday, 15 June./*  If no comments are received during 
> the review period staff will accept the changes and circulate the 
> final version of the charter for a two-week Consensus Call.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *Action Items/Discussion Notes 08 June*
>
> **
>
> *Action Items: *
>
>  1. _Contracted Party House Membership_: Staff will provide details
>     concerning membership processes, particularly with respect to
>     interest groups or non-contracted parties, and add these to the
>     Google Document for tracking overarching or out-of-scope questions.
>  2. _Charter for Recommendations 24/25_: 1) Revise the charter to
>     indicate that the Working Group has discussed the following action
>     from the GNSO Review Working Party: “determine whether or not
>     there is a presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted
>     if all requirements are met and if such a presumption is
>     appropriate” and the Working Group determined that there is not a
>     presumption that a new Constituency should be admitted if all
>     requirements are met since a Constituency applicant could fail the
>     evaluation process by the Board or the Stakeholder Group if it did
>     not meet the criteria; 2) include the Process for Recognition of
>     New GNSO Constituencies as an attachment in the revised charter;
>     3) circulate the revised document for one week and if no comments
>     are received initiate a Call for Consensus for two weeks.
>  3. _Charter for Recommendations 10/11_: Send the charter to the list
>     for review and to initiate discussion.  Continue discussion at the
>     meeting on 22 June.
>
> *Discussion Notes: *
>
> /1. Charter for Recommendation 16:/
>
> -- Call for Consensus closed on 29 May.  There were no objections to 
> the implementation charter so it is approved by full consensus.
>
> -- See the wiki for status on Consensus Calls and Charters under 
> review at: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/GRWG/Status+of+Draft+Documents+and+Consensus+Calls. 
>
>
> /2. Continue Discussion of Charter for Recommendations 24/25:/
>
> -- Question: Referring to documents regarding the process. Would it be 
> necessary dive into the process itself -- such as the duration?  
> Looking at the flow chart could be as short as 3 months, but could be 
> longer.  Are there specific criteria that must be met?  Answer: It 
> would seem that an analysis of the process itself would be out of 
> scope of these recommendations, which only address whether the process 
> is followed, is transparent, and if guidelines exist.
>
> -- Question of presumption of the default outcome: Is it appropriate?  
> What are the options for the Working Group? Answer: The Working Group 
> could decide whether the presumption of admission (the “default 
> outcome”) is appropriate given the fact that even if a new 
> Constituency has met the criteria, it still could fail the evaluation 
> by the Stakeholder Group or the Board for other reasons.  If it 
> decides it is appropriate then the Working Group may need to suggest 
> changes to the constituency application and evaluation process.  If it 
> decides it is not appropriate then the process does not need to be 
> modified, but the Working Group should call out the fact that this 
> part of Recommendation 24 “subject to which the default outcome is 
> that a new Constituency is admitted” may not be applied if a 
> Constituency is deemed not to meet the criteria in the evaluation process.
>
> -- Where is the bar in anticipation of participation?  There is some 
> peril in not having objective criteria in terms of effectiveness or 
> activity.  The idea of active participation is too loose.
>
> -- NPOC is the only new constituency and those rules grew out of the 
> stress and tension of trying to create a new constituency.  NCSG 
> wanted to just have interest groups, but rules were developed to 
> accommodate the need for a group that said they wanted a 
> constituency.  NPOC was the only one that made it through the process.
>
> -- Have we set the bar so high that it sets a deterrent?  Should we be 
> looking at the criteria? Should the criteria be as objective as possible?
>
> -- Is this process transparent enough?  Do we make changes to the 
> process or not?
>
> -- The criteria have a value.  We have a balance to ensure that they 
> are active and grow to find their mission.  Important to have high bars.
>
> From the Chat:
>
> avri doria: Perhaps this is Off Topic, but why do we have a 
> Staff/Board imposed process for new constituencies in NCPH but not in 
> CPH? i have never understood this imbalance.
>
> avri doria: Thanks, I missed last week's mtg.
>
> Marika Konings: My recollection is similar, because the contracted 
> aspect creates an automatic qualifying criteria it was deemed not 
> necessary to create a process (either you have a contract and you can 
> join through a set membership process, or you don't).
>
> avri doria: This relates to membership in the SGs, but not to the 
> creation of constituencies.
>
> Marika Konings: Correct, but I believe linked to that on the 
> contracted party side the view was that there was no need for 
> constituencies as everyone is a contracted party (registry or 
> registrar). But to get the real insight into this, we may need to dig 
> into history and ask those directly involved in that decision.
>
> avri doria: They call it an interest group instead of a constituency.  
> but the NCPH is nt allowed to have interest groups instead of 
> constituencies.
>
> Marika Konings: I think the interest group concept was created to 
> address the interest of those wanting to participate but not yet 
> qualifying as contracted parties as they had not signed a contract 
> with ICANN yet. I don't know if that concept still exists, even though 
> there are groups that are organized in a certain way such as the Geo 
> Names and BRG. It might be interesting to see whether there is further 
> discussion in those groups around this as, for example, in the near 
> future there will potentially be a new group of contracted parties 
> (P/P providers) and in the past, there has also been mention of escrow 
> providers as a specific group of contracted parties.
>
> avri doria: I was deeply involved in that particular set of events.
>
> Amr Elsadr: Apart from a constituency application that was outright 
> rejected, there was also an applicant that made it through to the 
> candidate constituency phase in the NCSG for a few years, but it 
> didn't make it to full constituency status.
>
> Lori Schulman: Amr: who was the applicant that "partially" made it
>
> Amr Elsadr: The Consumer Constituency.
>
> avri doria: yes, I was part of the effort to start the consumer 
> constituency in NCSG, but it never got sufficient participant support 
> within the candidate constituency to meet the requirements of both the 
> ICANN process & the NCSG requirements for active participation.
>
> Lori Schulman: Diversity is a good point and objective
>
> Amr Elsadr: The CCAOI application did not meet the diversity criteria 
> in more than one way, which is one of the reasons the application was 
> rejected.
>
> avri doria: A presumption of acceptance would be hard for everyone, 
> but even harder for CSG as that would change the number of seats each 
> of the existing constituencies could hold.  Since council seats in the 
> NCSG are based on an SG wide selection process, its model can support 
> a multitude of constituencies if they met the conditions without any 
> change to council seating except through elections at the SG level.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-review-wg mailing list
> Gnso-review-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-review-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170621/39880e4a/attachment-0001.html>