Final Motions on ARR Public Comment

[Rafik Dammak]

hello,

so I will send the amendment it now if there is no objectiosn.

Rafik

2010/1/28 William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> Good morning,
>
> The Council call is in three hours and we need to get our proposed
> amendments in.
>
> On the draft ARR and Chatham, we have two options.
>
> 1.  Robin favors an absolutist approach in which CH is entirely struck, per
> my suggestion yesterday:
>
> "Communications between the review teams and the SO/ACs should be prudent
> and necessary to support the teams and/or convey major concerns."
>
> As I said, I suspect this would be regarded as unfriendly and would not
> garner support outside NCSG.  So we stand on a principle but lose, the
> existing Chatham language stays in, and we get our least preferred outcome.
>  Not the best way to conclude some game theory, in my view.
>
> 2.  Mary's language offers an incremental improvement:
>
> "It is expected that any communications or other input sought and
> received will be provided in good faith, and that SOs/ACs will exercise
> prudence and make use of the opportunity when it is necessary to support the
> teams and/or convey major concerns. In exceptional circumstances, a SO or
> AC, the review teams or members thereof may consider it necessary to subject
> such communications or other input to reasonable restrictions such as the
> Chatham House rule, and where this is the case, the relevant parties to the
> affected communication or input shall, as far as possible, be informed in
> advance."
>
> This has the advantage of probably being regarded as friendly and passable
> with business support.  It leaves open what constitutes an exceptional
> circumstance.  IF the Selectors and RTs decided to take this Council advise
> on board in their operating agreements (by no means a foregone conclusion)
> and when it came time for RT members to periodically fill in their AC/SOs
> someone said well this particular communication should be under Chatham,
> there'd be the possibility to debate whether the situation is really
> exceptional and the content being conveyed has to be scrubbed of names.  The
> RTs are supposed to operate by consensus normally, one would think this
> could ultimately play out in a manner we find suitable.  Worst case
> scenario, for a given communication, a GNSO RT member might have to say
> something like "there was a majority feeling in the team that x while a
> minority felt y."  Personally, while at the level of principle this seems
> less desirable, in practice I don't see it as a massive blow to
> transparency.  With (hopefully) teams of like 15 comprising representatives
> with pretty much know positions anyway, I suspect we'd be able to glean
> who's saying what from the account if that really is material.
>
> So my suggestion to Rafik is that he submit Mary's version of the motion
> rather than mine, ASAP.  Let's have something that can pass and actually be
> helpful rather than standing on an unsupported principle and getting a worse
> outcome (if any).
>
> It should also be noted that yesterday night the IPC put forward an
> amendment regarding the support teams, which Chuck took on board as
> friendly:
> *
> *
>
> "Even if the size of the review teams is expanded per the above, managing
> all the work envisaged over extended time periods will be very challenging.
> As such, it is reasonable to expect that there will be instances where some
> task-specific support may be needed, e.g. with data collection, that would
> impose a substantial burden on both team members and the staff. One way of
> addressing these challenges would be to constitute a support team for each
> review that can be turned to for targeted assistance. The review teams could
> draw such teams – but not exclusively - from the pools of nominees that were
> not selected for review team membership. If those pools were not
> sufficiently robust or did not offer the specialized expertise needed, the
> SO/ACs could suggest additional names for consideration by the review
> teams."
>
> This is mostly editorial, but the key point is at the end: instead of the
> Selectors deciding from names submitted, it would be the RTs themselves that
> do this.  I think this is an improvement, enhancing RT soverignty rather
> giving automatic deference to the Selectors.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100128/b15e641b/attachment.html>