Additional Questions for consideration by the WG-WT
1. How should the GNSO Council deal with recommendations that are not consensus recommendations, but that have rough consensus or strong support?
(Caroline Greer) I think the Council would need to examine each situation on its own merits. It would obviously therefore be important that a WG provides enough detail to the Council so that the Council has as much information as possible to make an informed decision.
(Subbiah) the GNSO Council itself (which will have voting power) will have to vote on accepting these recomendations - bearing in mind who in the WG supported the "strong support" recomendation and we let the Voting Power of the various GNSO constituencies at the Council level play out in whatever political machinations it may take. For example if the WG was all composed of GNSO registry members pushing for a "strong support" recomendation, then the Council can vote with that fact being known to them - maybe every constituency other than the Registry constituency in opposition to the Registry constituency :-)
(Avri) I think this depends. If upon reviewing the discussions and consideration they find that a complete job was done and a sufficinet attempt was made to reach full consensus they acept the report and take the level of support into consideration in terms of their decision to put forward the recommendaiton to the board. If on the other hand, they see an approach not considered or point that was not covered or beleive that more discussion is needed, they can send it back with questions/suggestions for further discussion.
In any case it should neither be accepted nor rejected without the due diligence to make sure that all that could be considered was - and that any and all comment received in constituency, SG or community comments were adequately considered and responded to. they also need to determine that sufficient effort was put into reaching consensus - they can also send it back with recommendations on ways not attempted in reaching consensus.
(CLO) My view is that the GNSO Council would indeed need to show that it has undertaken all required due diligence and that this should specifically mean the each case is looked at and that due consideration and discussion to the 'strong support' recommendation be made and that all comments have been considered and responded to; The full processes of a WG should ensure that the Council has sufficient fact in front of them at the time of such consideration and it may be that after Council discussion returning a matter to a WG to reach consensus (after a 'fresh approach' is taken or additional information/ opinion guidance is considered in the WG) may be worthwhile but I would encourage this to not be seen as a "norm:" rather that there is an expectation that WG outcomes will have better that "strong support" and that there is a clear consensus preference.
2. Does or should it matter who is supporting those recommendations i.e. if there is rough consensus between all constituencies / stakeholder groups, but it is only two individual members of the team (not representing anyone but themselves) should that be given different weight when being presented to and considered by the GNSO Council?
(Subbiah) I don' think there will be any satisfactory answer since they all basically at core point to how much "voting power" different people on the WG have given who they represent. Intrinsically this cannot be determined within the WG. An outside "agency" has to decided who has more "voting power" etc.
Of course there are formally 2 extreme alternatives.
(1) Ban individuals and only allow GNSO Council reps - and each rep will reflect the voting weight of the constituency on the council today. Clearly this is something I think the WG approach was trying to avoid - allow grassroots individual and all-comer participation, particularly when requisite expertise may not be found withinthe GNSO reps ranks itself.
(2) The other extreme is to basically say - whoever is interersted can join (individuals, GNSO reps) and everybody is equal vote and its totally open-ended. Like IETF where "those interested enough" will join and influence the debate. While at some level open and egalatarian and leaves outcomes to the power of the ideas themselves and how much support/activism that idea garners, one can envision scenarios where it can be abused/misused. And if we are not strong enough to accept such potentially untoward outcomes, then I am sure there will be discussion
to restrict membership of the WG to make it more "balanced". The act of "balancing" will be in core essence a revisit of (1) above. Once again, an outside "agency" (in this case maybe us in this WG) in effect deciding on the voting weight of various parties.
So net net scenario (1) may equal (2).
(Avri) Any comment that is a good comment should be considered, whomsoever it comes from. Ideas should be considered on their merit and on the basis of not having been fully considered before, not based on who makes them. What is special about the constituencies is that they are specifically invited to make early comments and as members of SG groups they get to manage the process and get to determine that due considerations was given to all ideas, including their own. Individuals have to find their own way to the table and need to respond to general calls for comments. But a good thought is a good thought no matter who it comes from.
(CLO) Actually I think the level or "representativeness" of views should be taken into account ... That is NOT to say that individual views are discounted however but IF a "consensus or popular / greater good view is being brought forward that should be recognized and perhaps carry more "weight" in the discussion, as it is indicative of a healthy 'bottom up' process that aggregated and agreed views should emerge when they do it needs to be valued and recognized within a WG's activities as well as within the Council's deliberations...
3. In making the assessment between rough consensus and strong support, should the WG Chair factor in the difference between a vote that represents a whole constituency or stakeholder group and that of an individual?
(Subbiah) The only way out of this formal dilemma I see is to let the WG form at any composition of members it arrives at (just record distribution) and let this group make a recomendation (the best it can produce even if skewed or biased). If there is no consensus but only strong support it will necessarily reflect the position of each member (and that member's afffiliation as individual or GNSO constituency rep will also be recorded and known).
(Avri) I do not think so. first it should not be a vote, but a process intended to reach consensus. The basis should be on whether the idea was given full consideration and once it was clearly that it as understood by all it was accepted by most or not acepted by most. The WG process are not to be run on a voting basis, so it is the representation of points of view that counts, not how many subscribe to the idea.
(CLO) I believe WG's need to focus ON consensus not "vote" outcomes... We have mechanisms enough to ensure that both string support options as well as minority reports/ opinions are fully considered by Council
(J Scott) At the WG level, there should not be any weight attached to the 'vote' of one group versus another, but there should be due diligence to ensure that the process is followed. In most cases, even though a WG member might also be a member of a constituency / stakeholdergroup, the WG member will be speaking as an individual and not be representing a constituency / stakeholder group. It is appropriate to consider 'weight' in the context of public comments or constituency / stakeholder group statements as here it is possible to receive statements that reflect the position of a group as a whole.
4. Should the WG Guidelines provide any guidance on what represents a balanced Working Group and should a WG or Chair provide its view on whether it feels that recommendations are made on behalf of a representative WG (a membership list might look representative, but in practice many do not actively participate)?
(Caroline Greer) The WG ought to be able to evaluate its own representativeness, both with regard to individual participants or the WG as a whole. And of course a balanced group on one issue may look completely different to another one working on another issue because the impacted parties will vary according to the subject matter. Therefore, I think it would be very difficult to provide guidelines on what a balanced group might look like. A WG can only reach out to all stakeholders and encourage them to join up; it cannot force them to get involved. I think group representation is something that the WG Chair should opine on by way of a side note when submitting the WG’s recommendation.
(Avri) I think general guidelines are good. I think it is also a good idea for the WG chair to not only work at recruiting a balanced group but to report on the degree to which s/he thought the group was balanced in its operation - remembering that it is relevant points of view and not groups that determine balance.
(CLO) Remembering that were working with volunteers we must be flexible, yet ensure a WG Chair strives for as much balance and engagement as possible but the essential part is to Review this throughout the life of a WG and to clearly report on this as well as note any perceived or actual effect that such balance (or lack thereof) had on the WG's outcomes and recommendations.
(Subbiah) One good way of making sure a WG has well-balanced membership is to observe whether any group, especially with a point of view that may not already be addressed within the WG membership already formed upto that point in time, is complaining that they are not being allowed to join etc. When such complaints cease or subside, that logically suggests that there is no known view/group that does not at least has some representation on the WG. The window for such observation and any additional inclusion of complainants should ideally be at least a month into after the WG has been formally started - in order to ensure late views. (In practice, despite efforst to well-publicize WG's, past hitsory shows it is always the same ususla insiders who end up on most committees and this would help improve on that). I speak with documentable evidence where a large group of complainants with a different points of view and in many instances better qualified on the subject matter than the actual members of the WG (all the way to ombudsman level) were systematically kept out of the WG for many months until the WG was almost over (rushing to finish before the differing points of view could enter the discussion). Brought in at the very end, they were unable to affect the discusion and under the old rules unable to vote either. Politness aside, it was nasty, ugly and agenda-driven to shut out dissenting opinion and final recomendations were made (ignoring the last minute differing viewpoints) that ended up into the new gTLD policy and in retrospect has signifcnatly hurt the introduction of IDN gTLDs 3 years hence and will continue to do so. It ended up provably hurting the world of Intener users and also hurt ICANN and its ability to deliver in the process. That sad experience is the reason for my own participation in this almost year-long effort to come up with a better WG model. Again, one sign of a well-balanced WG in terms of ideology and viewpoints is one where no one is complaining in the early stages of WG formation/operation that they are being left out.
(J Scott) It will be the role of the WG leadership, incl. CO liaison to monitor this on an ongoing basis so any under- or overrepresentation can be reported to the CO and appropriate action be taken (e.g. encourage underrepresented constituencies / stakeholdergroups to participate). The WG Chair and CO liaison should be encouraged to report on the representativeness of the WG as part of their report / update to the CO. Members of the WG should be encourage to share their perspective on the representativeness of the WG as part of the self-evaluation / assessment at the end of the process.
Voting requirements for the Policy Development Process under the current by-laws
1. Raising an Issue
(...)
b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council of each House or a majority of one House.
(...)
3. Initiation of PDP
(...)
c. Vote of the Council. A vote of more than 33% of the Council members of each House or more than 66% vote of one House in favor of initiating the PDP within scope will suffice to initiate the PDP; unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is not properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process or the GNSO, in which case a GNSO Supermajority Vote as set forth in Article X, Section 3, paragraph 9(c) http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.9.c in favor of initiating the PDP will be required to initiate the PDP.
(...)
10. Council Deliberation
a. Upon receipt of a Final Report, whether as the result of a task force or otherwise, the Council chair will (i) distribute the Final Report to all Council members; and (ii) call for a Council meeting within ten (10) calendar days thereafter. The Council may commence its deliberation on the issue prior to the formal meeting, including via in-person meetings, conference calls, e-mail discussions or any other means the Council may choose. The deliberation process shall culminate in a formal Council meeting either in person or via teleconference, wherein the Council will work towards achieving a Successful GNSO Vote to present to the Board.
(...)
12. Agreement of the Council
A. Successful GNSO Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the Council's recommendation. In the event a GNSO Supermajority Vote is not achieved, approval of the recommendations contained in the Final Report requires a majority of both houses and further requires that one representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the recommendations. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council members must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in the outcome of the policy issue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as set forth above, all viewpoints expressed by Council members during the PDP must be included in the Board Report.
