[Ws2-hr] clarification

[Greg Shatan]

All.

I don't think we have "a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the
plenary level."  I've gone back to the Transcript and notes to confirm my
recollection.

It's clear that the Ombudsman group is in that situation.  It was pretty
clear that an aspect of their report was not getting sufficient support
from the Plenary to move beyond it.  So they were told to go back and try
again.

That is not where we stand.  There was no Plenary decision at all.  Nor was
there a "knotty issue" brought to the plenary (although one could say that
any issue that inspires a "dissent" is somewhat knotty).  There was a
request that the Plenary consider resolving an issue differently from the
way that the Subgroup did.

Here's the relevant portion of the transcript (slightly cleaned up by
listening to the recording):

>> THOMAS RICKERT:  Okay.  Thanks very much.  Now, it appears like the,
which our sub team has submitted a report and that there were some
last-minute changes which were controversial in the sub team itself.  I
think that given this controversy the sub team needs to take this back and
discuss this, so that we get a report to the plenary which has the status
of being confirmed by the sub team.  I think it was interesting though to
get some views but I guess it clearly shows that the plenary doesn't have
sufficient information to take a decision today.

We have one minute left in this call.  So I'm afraid that we need to end
this discussion for today.  There will be another plenary on the 11th.  And
let me now hand over to my fellow co chair Jordan for closing remarks and
adjournment.

>> JORDAN CARTER:  Thanks Thomas.  Niels is that you?

>> NIELS TEN OEVER:  I’m sorry, Thomas, I have to ask can we please
schedule this for next plenary and not just point this back to the
subgroup.  I think in the subgroup we have managed to come to a consensus
with the minority statement.  I think if we want to get rid of the minority
statement I think we would do it, have a discussion in the plenary not
point it back to the subgroup because I think in the subgroup I'm not sure
how much we can move it and we would really like to have more time to
discuss this in the plenary if possible.

>> JORDAN CARTER:  We will definitely have this topic on the agenda for the
next plenary.

Thomas, do you want to add anything more to that?
>> THOMAS RICKERT:  No I just wanted to confirm we’re going to discuss it
at the next meeting and if you as rapporteur inform us that the report is
ready to be debated and that is by the plenary, so be it.  Fine.  Over to
you, Jordan.

I'll leave it to our rapporteur to confirm exactly where we stand, but I
did want to clarify that we are not a position where the Plenary spoke and
told us to try again.  We ran out of time before the Plenary could consider
the report before them (without Jorge's suggestion), which could have
resulted in (a) accepting the report as is, (b) sending the report back to
the subgroup to try again, or (c) a Plenary decision to revise the report
in some fashion.

I think it's relevant that Jorge's suggested text was sent to the Plenary
list and not to the Subgroup. and that the Plenary was asked to consider
it.  So, it seems to me that Thomas's summary of where things stand does
not quite capture it correctly -- it would be more accurate to say that
"last minute changes were submitted to the Plenary which were controversial
to members of the Subgroup." (Obviously, not controversial to *all* members
of the Subgroup.)

Procedurally, that may well dictate that this should stay at the Plenary
level.  The procedural ping-pong in the Plenary doesn't leave it clear
where CCWG and Subgroup leadership think it should be (with Thomas seeming
to bounce this back to the Subgroup and Niels stating that it would be
better dealt with in the Plenary, with the end result only that it will be
on the agenda of the next Plenary).

Pragmatically, the Plenary discussion will probably be better served if the
Subgroup hashes this out one more time, even if that's not procedurally
correct.  If there is a proposal that would eliminate the need for the
current dissent, without losing significant support from those in the
current consensus, that would be great.  If there is no such proposal,
then, as Thomas said, "so be it."

Greg


On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> > So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG-
> > ACCT call yesterday referring to when they objected to the "compromise
> text" that was submitted to the CCWG list without having gone through the
> usual procedures in the subgroup?
>
> It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in
> a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next
> step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion.
> Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached
> to a proposed recommendation.
>
> This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the
> plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to
> reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level.
>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-hr mailing list
> Ws2-hr at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-hr/attachments/20171001/db357c14/attachment.html>