[Ws2-hr] clarification

[Niels ten Oever]

Dear all,

We have reached a consensus in our subgroup on our report to the
plenary, with a minority opinion.

I would prefer if we could come to a full consensus, without a minority
opinion, but currently I do not see how to achieve that, but I also do
not want to stop searching for it.

If the subgroup believes there is space to find a consensus position
between the 'more Ruggie' and the 'no more Ruggie' camp I would be more
than willing to facilitate it.

Such a full consensus position would most probably look like: a little
bit more Ruggie. If this is something we would like to further seek out,
I am more than happy to help setup calls, drafting teams, or anything
else that might make a full consensus possible. If we do not think we
can come to such a solution, we will need to continue discussion it in
the plenary.

I am very curious to hear your ideas and suggestions.

Best,

Niels


On 10/01/2017 09:40 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-hr at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171002/5de394dc/attachment.html>