[RZERC] RZERC Procedures redline and clean copy docs

[Jim Reid]

> On 15 Jun 2017, at 18:25, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
> 
> 
> That said, I think the current text on SOI/CoI needs more work.

Indeed.

> In its current state, ICANN support staff is the custodian of the
> submissions.  My perception is that ACs handle this in different
> ways and I'd like to understand the reasoning behind this suggestion.

Having ICANN staff act as the custodian is the simplest and tidiest solution Peter. If you disagree, please suggest better alternatives. For some definition of “better”. RZERC relies on volunteer effort from people with busy day jobs. Expecting committee member(s) to be the custodian and/or look after the paperwork is a recipe for trouble. Best leave this sort of activity to the professionals who ICANN employs to do just that: Mario and his colleagues.

> In any case, the substance of the SOI/CoI policy must not appear
> in an appendix; alos, I do not believe ICANN staff should bear the
> responsibility of suspending the committee chair upon failure of
> submission of an SOI.

I agree. The entire Failure to Comply paragraph could be replaced with:

RZERC has the discretion to suspend (or expel?) a member who fails to provide a Disclosure of Interests Declaration.

> On decision making, I believe the two stage model has its merits
> because it encourages statements of dissent, rather than trying to
> apply the IETF model of consensus, which often enough in inapplicable.

Our charter says we work by consensus. We can’t change that unless we initiate a review of the charter itself. Asking for a charter rewrite before RZERC has actually done anything seems wrong. There’s no evidence yet that consensus decision-making has failed for RZERC or demonstrable proof why/how some other mechanism would be better.

I hope/expect we can work by consensus. If we can’t, RZERC is in serious trouble... Besides, consensus decision-making does not prevent statements of dissent. I’m also sure our chairman would make sure that any dissenting views were published alongside the consensus opinion if/when RZERC couldn’t get unanimity.

> However, following the idea that decisions aren't made during meetings
> and also that RZERC's work will require urgency only in ver exceptional
> circumstances, I wonder what the "formal actions" on the agenda/invite
> could be and I'd also like to see a minimum phase for the duration of
> a consensus call (measured in weeks and/or meetings).

I disagree. We seem to be over-thinking this. Is this level of shed-painting really necessary?

BTW RZERC can *only* make decisions during meetings.