[gnso-vi-feb10] Decision-making methodology

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

As discussed in today’s meeting, please find below the decision-making 
methodology that is referenced in the charter by providing a link to an earlier 
draft of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. For completeness, you’ll also find 
below the latest version of the decision-making methodology as can be found in 
the final version of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as produced by the 
Working Group Work Team on 31 May (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-31may10-en.htm).

>From the 5 February draft of the GNSO WG Guidelines (referenced in the VI WG 
>Charter):

The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of 
the following designations:

 *   Unanimous consensus
 *   Rough consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees but most 
agree
 *   Strong support but significant opposition
 *   No consensus

In the case of rough consensus, strong support or no consensus, the WG Chair is 
encouraged to facilitate that minority viewpoint(s) are stated and recorded.

>From the 31 May GNSO Working Group Guidelines:

The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of 
the following designations:

 *   Full consensus – a position where no minority disagrees
 *   Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree
 *   No consensus but strong support for a specific position / recommendation 
but significant opposition
 *   Divergence – no strong support for a specific position / recommendation

In the case of consensus, no consensus or divergence, the WG Chair should 
encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).

With best regards,

Marika