Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, gnso-osc-ops <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting
- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:14:45 -0700
Thanks for pointing out the defective link. I will fix it. The relevant
section pertaining to decision making in the Charter is provided below.
Decision Making: The WT shall function on the basis of ³rough consensus²
meaning that all points of view will be discussed until the Chair can
ascertain that the point of view is understood and has been covered. That
consensus viewpoint will be reported to the OSC in the form of a WT Report.
Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in the
WT Report. The minority view should include the names and affiliations of
those contributing to that part of the report.
In producing the WT Report, the Chair will be responsible for designating
each position as having one of the following designations:
€ Unanimous consensus position
€ Rough consensus position where no more than 1/3 disagrees and at least 2/3
€ Strong support (at least a simple majority), but significant opposition
(more than 1/3)
€ No majority position
In all cases, the Chair will include the names and affiliations of those in
support of each position and for participants representing a group (e.g.,
constituencies, stakeholder groups, other groups) will indicate if their
support represents the consensus view of their constituency/group.
If any participant in a WT disagrees with the designation given to a
position by the Chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow
these steps sequentially:
1. Send an email to the Chair, copying the WT explaining why the decision is
believed to be in error.
2. If the Chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the OSC. The Chair
must explain his or her reasoning in the response.
3. If the OSC supports the Chair, the participants may attach a statement of
the appeal to the GNSO Council Report generated by the OSC. This statement
should include the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and
should include a statement from the OSC.
On 9/29/10 4:06 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Today you mentioned that, while you would hate to do it, you might have to
> resort fo a vote if we did not have consensus.
> I went to check and see whether outr charter allowed for us to decide in the
> middle of a subject, once we found that we did not have easy consensus to
> switch to a voting mechanism. I don't think we can but was not sure, so
> needed to check the charter.
> is a dead link.
> In any case, I would hope that any vote, if the charter indeed permits voting,
> would be carried out in a way that would include all members of the WT - even
> those who rarely if ever join us on the calls.