Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Consensus Discussion: Additional Thought

[Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>]

On 16 Apr 2009, at 14:04, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> All participants in the WG will be required to submit SOIs. If who
> supports what is properly documented it will allow the Council to
> sufficiently analyize the support and claimed level of consensus
> for each view or position.
I agree that this kind of transparency is essential, whether or not  
one adopts precise voting thresholds for consensus calls.
> But I also think the BGC's recommendations included the concept of
> appropriate size, and I would question the concept of a completely
> open WG in the sense that any number of participants are allowed.
> It would not be wise on the part of the *managers* to allow a WG
> to become unmanageable, or on the other hand to proceed if there is
> not a balance of representation and sufficient participation.
> Especially when a WG is comtemplating binding policy the Council
> must act as good managers and be certain that the WG is well
> *staffed* and appropriately equipped to deal with the task they are
> being assigned.
In other words, you're willing to assume a more balanced WG than I was  
solving for in my remarks; if WGs are indeed balanced (whatever that  
might mean in detail), then things like a 2/3 majority suddenly become  
a useful concept.  Whatever way this discussion goes, I think it would  
be important to capture these different assumptions going forward.