Re: [wg-review] Proposal draft (Part 1)

["Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Rod,

 

Thanks for your comment. I completely concur with your addition, and I will add your suggestion to the draft text.  After all, it would be nice to include *all* viewpoints in any formal recommendation, even those which dissent (as long as they are substantive in nature, of course).  I will post it a little later, as I'm currently working on the rest of the proposal which I also hope to post a little later on as well.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

        Working Chair, WG Review

 

---- Original Message -----

From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.

To: Sotiropoulos ; wg-review@dnso.org

Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:55 PM

Subject: Re: [wg-review] Proposal draft (Part 1)

This is a terrific job! Thanks for getting this going. I have one suggestion, which is bracketed as the last sentence.

 

 Recommendation:  In light of the confusion and lack of reference with regards to what constitutes a “consensus” mechanism in the DNSO, the formal adoption of a standard 2/3 definition of “consensus” is recommended.  This 2/3 formula is proposed as a standard for the purposes of research or drafting  committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA, and should be based on the number of participants voting within the respective groups.  In other words, assuming that there are 40 members on a given list and only 30 exercise their right to vote, then 20 would be considered a “consensus”.  In the event of someone not agreeing with the options provided for in a vote ballot, an abstention option should also be mandated for any ballot, which option establishes participation in the voting process without committing to any of the other alternatives. In this way, a clear distinction between abstaining and not voting is established. [In addition, since a "consensus" of opinion should reflect more than just the recorded outcome of the view of the (super)majority, a written record of dissenting views should be included in any formal recommendation receiving at least 2/3 but less than unanimous support.]