Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Cool.  I knew that was the basic, but I did not remember if that was what in 
this group's charter.  I actually thought we had decided to work on full 
consensus in our charter.  I guess that is the OSC itself that works on the 
basis of full consensus.

It means he does not need a vote.  Rather just needs to determine what level of 
support he has.

Ray certainly does not have full consensus, he may have rough consensus, though 
I am not sure I would accept that yet.

I am certainly comfortable with Strong Support but significant opposition.

But really we will need to hear rom the other members of the group on this 
issue.  And I expect we need to outline it writing for them.

thanks.

a.

On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:14, Julie Hedlund wrote:

> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the defective link.  I will fix it.  The relevant
> section pertaining to decision making in the Charter is provided below.
> 
> Thanks,
> Julie
> 
> 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
> agree
> € 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:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Unfortunately,
>> 
>> https://st.icann.org/static/3.7.0.11/skin/s3/html/index.cgi?gnso_operations_wo
>> rk_team_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.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
> 
>