Tim and WGT:
On the basis of the 100% requirement in Tim's first threshold, it would seem that the term "unanimous" has the same meaning as "full consensus." I think the term "unanimous" is more common (and easier to recognize) and I suggest that we replace it for "full consensus." Does anyone else share that view?
If, as discussed on the call, we elevate "rough consensus" to something closer to 2/3 level, we might need another category, as Avri suggested, for "majority." Does "Majority" work?
If so, the hierarchy might look like:
Unanimous (100%)
Rough Consensus (2/3)
Majority (> 1/2)
No Agreement (0%)
I note that "minority" would be duplicative since it is the inverse of majority.
Ken Bour
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:49 AM
To: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Doodle Reminder: Choose a Drafting Team
I am okay with moving on to the next stage. However, if we are in
consensus on doing that, such consensus should be taken to mean that we
are committed to the summaries as written. As they stand, they are a
good starting point but clearly not the end point.
For example, I would prefer the following for consideration as consensus
thresholds within WGs. The idea is too keep it simple yet allow for all
viewpoints and positions to be moved forward in any subsequent reports
to the Council and/or Board. Also, each should be demonstrable beyond
the gut feeling of the Chair(s) of the working group.
Suggested Consensus Thresholds:
1. Full Consensus - Everyone is in confirmed agreement (100%).
2. Rough Consensus - A clear and demonstrable majority (more than 50%)
are in agreement. Minority views must be recognized and included in any
subsequent reports.
3. No Consensus - It cannot be demonstrated that a clear majority are in
agreement (no view or position has more than 50% agreement). All
views/positions are Minority Views and all are included in any
subsequent report.
4. Minority View - Any viewpoint or position that has support of one or
more participants but less than a majority (50% or less).
Reports must demonstrate each of the above by explicitly associating
supporting WG participants with each view/position.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Doodle Reminder: Choose a Drafting Team
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 13, 2009 10:14 am
To: ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
I also note that there has bee very little or NO discussion of the
reviews put together by our sub-teams. If everyone is fine with the
summaries that have been submitted we can move to next stage of work.
If not, we need to discuss and come to some consensus so that we can
move forward. Please, if you have a view about one of the summaries,
please speak up now or forever hold your peace.
J. Scott
j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark |
Yahoo! Inc. | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
From: Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 7:50:17 AM
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Doodle Reminder: Choose a Drafting Team
WG Team Members:
At our last teleconference on 26 March, J. Scott asked each member to
please identify, in the next two weeks, which of the two teams
(Operating Model vs. Charter Guidelines) he/she would like to join when
we get to that point.
In the meeting minutes, I mentioned having created a Doodle poll to
facilitate that selection process at:
http://www.doodle.com/fchkyguxbrxmwmwa
There have only been two respondents thus far (Subbiah and Iliya), so I
thought I would send out a reminder.
Thanks,
Ken Bour