Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

The DNSO is going to be making non-technical business and policy decisions
that effect billions of dollars of property.

As for me, I want clear accountability -- I want DNSO bodies to have to
have counted votes on clearly stated issues.

Indeed, most of the decision making bodies of the world work this way.

I don't believe it is proper for those who don't vote to be counted as
"supporters" of a proposal.  Rather, I assert that those votes should be
counted either as abstaining or in opposition.

If the advocates of a proposal can't raise enough interest to accumulate a
majority of those voting, then their proposal should fail.

I'll say it once more -- the best procedure for these soft policy issues
is the proven procedure of voting on clearly stated issues.

So again, I am proposing that working groups operate using standard rules
of procedure (such as an electronic form of "Roberts Rules") with explicit
votes at decision points.

I am proposing that the General Assembly have to follow a similar
procedure.

I am proposing that the General Assembly be permitted to revise
working group output to any extent is pleases, even to the extent of
completely reworking the document or handing it to another group or
committee.

Further, I am proposing that no matter be forwarded from the General
Assembly as "approved" unless that matter has been put to a vote of the
entire general assembly and it is accepted by a majority of all votes
cast.

There's nothing unique about all of that, it's standard practice in most
of the world.

		--karl--