Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting
- To: gnso-osc-ops <gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:51:43 -0400
And the specific questions we are trying to answer of DOI?
- did the WT give any indication that DOI were not meant to be written?
-- if so, does the WT believe it is appropriate to send a correction to the OSC
on this issue?
-- if not, does the WT believe it is appropriate to change the decision at this
point and send a new decision to the OSC
--- with a follow on question of what other elements is it appropriate to
change at this point?
I think perhaps Ray had a different way of wording the initial question, but I
believe that the two question may be logically similar. But I am sure I will
On 29 Sep 2010, at 17:38, Ray Fassett wrote:
> Thank you, Avri. What I heard on the call today was the will of the WT
> members to review the language for the reasons as stated with your providing
> a dissenting opinion. All members of the WT are invited to participate in
> all WT matters whether by e-mail or by teleconference. Everything has been
> and will continue to be noted for the record. As of today, as decided on
> today's call, I expect for us to be taking up the subject of written DOI's as
> our first agenda item on our next teleconference in 2 weeks hopefully towards
> group resolution and/or recommendation. E-mail discussion prior to is
> certainly healthy and always encouraged by all WT members.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:45 PM
> To: gnso-osc-ops
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] voting
> 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.
> 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.
>> 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
>>> would be carried out in a way that would include all members of the WT -
>>> those who rarely if ever join us on the calls.