All.

I don't think we have "a subgroup decision that was not accepted at the plenary level."  I've gone back to the Transcript and notes to confirm my recollection.  

It's clear that the Ombudsman group is in that situation.  It was pretty clear that an aspect of their report was not getting sufficient support from the Plenary to move beyond it.  So they were told to go back and try again.  

That is not where we stand.  There was no Plenary decision at all.  Nor was there a "knotty issue" brought to the plenary (although one could say that any issue that inspires a "dissent" is somewhat knotty).  There was a request that the Plenary consider resolving an issue differently from the way that the Subgroup did.  

Here's the relevant portion of the transcript (slightly cleaned up by listening to the recording):

>> THOMAS RICKERT:  Okay.  Thanks very much.  Now, it appears like the, which our sub team has submitted a report and that there were some last-minute changes which were controversial in the sub team itself.  I think that given this controversy the sub team needs to take this back and discuss this, so that we get a report to the plenary which has the status of being confirmed by the sub team.  I think it was interesting though to get some views but I guess it clearly shows that the plenary doesn't have sufficient information to take a decision today.

We have one minute left in this call.  So I'm afraid that we need to end this discussion for today.  There will be another plenary on the 11th.  And let me now hand over to my fellow co chair Jordan for closing remarks and adjournment.

>> JORDAN CARTER:  Thanks Thomas.  Niels is that you?

>> NIELS TEN OEVER:  I’m sorry, Thomas, I have to ask can we please schedule this for next plenary and not just point this back to the subgroup.  I think in the subgroup we have managed to come to a consensus with the minority statement.  I think if we want to get rid of the minority statement I think we would do it, have a discussion in the plenary not point it back to the subgroup because I think in the subgroup I'm not sure how much we can move it and we would really like to have more time to discuss this in the plenary if possible.

>> JORDAN CARTER:  We will definitely have this topic on the agenda for the next plenary.

Thomas, do you want to add anything more to that?

>> THOMAS RICKERT:  No I just wanted to confirm we’re going to discuss it at the next meeting and if you as rapporteur inform us that the report is ready to be debated and that is by the plenary, so be it.  Fine.  Over to you, Jordan.

I'll leave it to our rapporteur to confirm exactly where we stand, but I did want to clarify that we are not a position where the Plenary spoke and told us to try again.  We ran out of time before the Plenary could consider the report before them (without Jorge's suggestion), which could have resulted in (a) accepting the report as is, (b) sending the report back to the subgroup to try again, or (c) a Plenary decision to revise the report in some fashion.  

I think it's relevant that Jorge's suggested text was sent to the Plenary list and not to the Subgroup. and that the Plenary was asked to consider it.  So, it seems to me that Thomas's summary of where things stand does not quite capture it correctly -- it would be more accurate to say that "last minute changes were submitted to the Plenary which were controversial to members of the Subgroup." (Obviously, not controversial to all members of the Subgroup.)

Procedurally, that may well dictate that this should stay at the Plenary level.  The procedural ping-pong in the Plenary doesn't leave it clear where CCWG and Subgroup leadership think it should be (with Thomas seeming to bounce this back to the Subgroup and Niels stating that it would be better dealt with in the Plenary, with the end result only that it will be on the agenda of the next Plenary).

Pragmatically, the Plenary discussion will probably be better served if the Subgroup hashes this out one more time, even if that's not procedurally correct.  If there is a proposal that would eliminate the need for the current dissent, without losing significant support from those in the current consensus, that would be great.  If there is no such proposal, then, as Thomas said, "so be it."

Greg