<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Here's the relevant portion of the transcript (slightly cleaned up by listening to the recording):</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">>>
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.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">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.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">>>
JORDAN CARTER: Thanks Thomas. Niels is that you?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">>>
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.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">>>
JORDAN CARTER: We will definitely have
this topic on the agenda for the next plenary.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">Thomas,
do you want to add anything more to that?<span></span></span></p>
<span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro"">>>
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.</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Source Sans Pro""><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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 <u>all</u> members of the Subgroup.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM, avri doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org" target="_blank">avri@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<span class="gmail-"><br>
On 29-Sep-17 19:59, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:<br>
> So what was everyone on the plenary CCWG-<br>
> 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?<br>
<br>
</span>It seems to me that once an issue is described as having no consensus in<br>
a subgroup and there is a declaration that none is reachable, the next<br>
step is to take the question to the plenary for plenary discussion.<br>
Seems to me this is especially the case when a minority view is attached<br>
to a proposed recommendation.<br>
<br>
This is not the first time a knotty issue has been brought to the<br>
plenary or the first time a subgroup was given the opportunity to<br>
reconsider a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level.<br>
<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
</font></span><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-hr mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-hr@icann.org">Ws2-hr@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-hr</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>