Thanks, Stephanie. 

Can you clarify what’s behind the need for this? What comes to my mind is that all of the consensus-building should occur within the working group. After all, isn't it the point of the WGs to assume the burden of the difficult discussions and come to some agreement across SGs/Cs?

Is it that the risk that the "aspirational statement" is trying to mitigate is that difficult issues become relitigated in the oversight body, preventing anything from getting done? I'm too new to know if this has happened in the past, so I cannot just the scale of the risk. 

I guess that in an ideal world the SGs and Cs represented in the WGs would have good consultation with their communities during the discussions, so that by the time it reaches the Council everyone is more or less on board. Probably that doesn't happen all the time.

Based on my experience in other contexts, I generally try to avoid these kinds of "aspirational statements" on the grounds that they tend to constrain the role of the Council and diminish the bylaws, which have specific guidelines regarding the approval of recommendations. 

Ken



-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Aspirational Statements

Dear NCSG members

For some time, there has been a process going on at the GNSO Council to craft an “aspirational statement” that would encourage members not to vote against the work of Working groups.  This is in keeping with our ongoing work on continuous improvement, and in my opinion may have sprung from recent surprises when work was tossed out by votes in council.  Obviously, we all hate work being thrown out with the bathwater at the last minute, but I have rather consistently spoken against such a statement because I feel we are already constrained by commitments to act in good faith.
Given the rise in small teams to deliver work product to Council, I am also very worried that this “aspirational statement” will be applied to situations where we have been under-represented in the "Working Groups”.  May I add that capitalising a term is very out of fashion in scholarly publication style, and does nothing to clarify its meaning.  

The GNSO Council is the formal body that votes on the results of the PDPs.  I do not believe we should attempt to constrain its ability to vote something down.  I would remind you that the holistic review is coming, and we will need to brush up on all the work that has been done on structural improvements.  I see this as a backward step, weakening the overall policy role of the GNSO.  I would welcome a discussion on this list to see what the members think.  It is up for voting at the next council meeting.

Aspirational Statement
The members of GNSO Council strive to be effective managers of the GNSO Policy Development Process (“PDP”). As managers of the PDP, the GNSO Council charters Working Groups in a way that accounts for both relevant expertise and stakeholder diversity within Working Group membership, then oversees the PDPs’ work throughout the PDP lifecycle. The GNSO Council recognizes that many deliberations occur within the Working Group during a PDP, and these deliberations lead to the consensus required for final policy recommendations.
While individual GNSO Councilors and the groups they represent may not fully agree with the final policy recommendation text, GNSO Councilors strive to support recommendations that follow the PDP’s consensus-building processes because doing so supports the broader multistakeholder model. In recognition of the multistakeholder model, when a Working Group delivers a Final Report with consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council will always try to vote in favor of the policy recommendations absent truly exceptional circumstances.


Stephanie Perrin
GNSO Councillor