Thanks Marika for the details on consensus, that matches what we have in our process, https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Consensus I'll look back at the charter for other details on editing management (e.g. how to define what's substantive vs. editorial change to a document). Regarding issue tracking tools, a wiki is one way to list issues, but it's not really adapted to automatization (e.g. marking, sorting issues, or retrieving historical data about an issue) over lots of transitions between issue states. Anyway, I never participated in an ICANN working group, so I'll stop here with my preamptive questions about process, and wait for more practicing to comment further if necessary. Take Care. Daniel Dardailler On 2017-01-12 17:23, Marika Konings wrote:

Thanks, Daniel for sharing your feedback and input. The CCWG charter notes the following in relation to decision-making:

_In developing its output, work plan and any other reports, the CCWG shall seek to act by consensus. The chair(s) may make a call for Consensus. If making such a call they should always make reasonable efforts to involve all Chartering Organization appointed Members of the CCWG (or sub-teams, if applicable). The chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:_

_ _

_a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection_

_b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree_

_ _

_In the absence of Full Consensus, the chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) by the Chartering Organization appointed members and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report._

_ _

_In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls: they should not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results._

_ _

_Any member who disagrees with the consensus-level designation made by the Chair(s), or believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted should first discuss the circumstances with the chair(s) of the CCWG. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the chairs of the Chartering Organizations or their designated representatives. _

In addition, the CCWG is expected to discuss as part of the development of its work plan how to manage the different aspects of work and what tools it may want to use. Typically we use the wiki space (see https://community.icann.org/x/yJXDAw) for keeping documents as well as draft work products, but tools like google docs have also been used. I’m sure your input and those of others that have ideas how to facilitate the work of the CCWG will be welcomed as part of that discussion.

Best regards,

Marika

On 1/12/17, 3:33 PM, "ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Daniel Dardailler" <ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces@icann.org on behalf of danield@w3.org> wrote:

Thanks for the tutorial, it was interesting, for me in particular since

I've done many such intro for W3C newcomers.

One thing that I didn't hear about, or that I may have missed, relates

to the ICANN or GNSO process used by the WG chair(s) to reach consensus

and declare the work ready to go to its next step (e.g. a public review,

a board review, a final version).

That includes the role of the WG deliverable editors, how they can

change the document under the chair authority, the use of version

management, etc. More generally, how agreements are reached within a

group, how the consensus is declared, and using what tool ?

One important feature of our system is the obligation for our groups to

track their issues transparently using some "standard" semantics for

various terms such as open issue, closed, pending review, postponed,

etc. To advance through their various steps (toward a standard, or a

deliverable, more generally) the chairs must check that all issues have

been adequatly resolved/postponed (and since the tracking is public most

of the time, it's impossible to hide something or forget it).

For instance, for this Timed Text W3C group (related to caption for

video), you can see their active list of issues at

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_AudioVideo_T...

and check where they stand, but also, for each issue, you can follow

down the links to the specific email exchanges about the issue (if you

want to read how the decision ended up that way for instance).

Anyway, I'm interested in knowing if tooling of that sort is available

at ICANN, or in the GNSO, how it'sused, or if each WG operates in an

adhoc way (e.g. the chair is responsible for tracking, however she

prefers to do it).

Thanks.

Daniel Dardailler

(I don't quite see the need for signing each of my message with my full

name since this information is already in my email From field, so

forgive me in advance if I forget this particular rule, as I never do

it, not even signing with my initial or first name, or alias).

_______________________________________________

Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list

Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds