[CCWG-ACCT] way forward and minority statements

Dr Eberhard Lisse el at lisse.NA
Wed Jul 29 15:58:03 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA1

Just to make this clear to myself let me quote from the charter

	Decision-Making Methodologies:

	In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other
	reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by
	consensus.  Consensus calls should always make best efforts
	to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or
	sub-working group).  The Chair(s) shall be responsible for
	designating each position as having one of the following
	a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
	identified by an absence of objection

	b) Consensus – a position where a small minority
	disagrees, but most agree
	In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow
	for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along
	with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
	In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a
	poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a
	recommendation.  However, care should be taken in using
	polls that they do not become votes, as there are often
	disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of
	the poll results.
That means, if there is a "Dissenting Opinion" (from a member
appointed by a chartering organization) to a specific item
("position") there is no "Full Consensus" but only Consensus and it
must be marked as such.

How many of the members (appointed by a chartering organization) are
"a small minority"?

In the case of "No Consensus" I would rather prefer we make this
clear, instead of calling it a "Draft Report" because as the first
"Draft Report" it will be taken as a Consensus Document, anyway.

I renew my objections against Co-Chairs' refusal to allow minority
viewpoints being added to the paper as in the first one, in case
there were no Consensus.  The Charter is quite clear.

I also do object, for the record, against to be given even less than
24 hours from the final draft in order to review it and to write
formal Minority Viewpoints.

I don't mind keeping 12:00 UTC 2015-07-31 as the deadline for the
"declaration" of disagreement but extend the deadline for submission
of the written reasons (which will be an addendum anyway) to let's
say 23:59 UTC 2015-08-02?

With regards to my apology for tomorrow's second call, please take
my wildcard disagreement, as Alan Greenberg put it, as if I was
present :-)-O

greetings, el

On 2015-07-29 15:57, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> All, as you will remember, we have discussed our suggested way 
> forward and the question of minority statements in our call 
> yesterday.  Nonetheless, we would like to offer some more 
> information on this.
> We would like to present to the community not only a draft report, 
> but a consensus proposal.  We do hope to have reached consensus on 
> all questions so there will be no need for an additional 
> determination of consensus after the public comment period unless 
> the community input requires us to revisit substantial parts of our
> proposal.
> 1.  We suggest you file a minority statement if you object to the 
> overall set of recommendations.  The minority statement will be 
> referred to in an appendix to the report.
> 2.  We suggest you provide us with your dissenting opinion to 
> individual questions so that we can include it in the body of the 
> report.  We already heard from individuals that they appreciate 
> this option as they do not wish their objection to an individual 
> aspect of the report to be perceived as opposition to the overall 
> approach we are taking.  If you consider using this option, please 
> use the following format to help add value to the proposal:
> i. raise your concern ii.  provide a rationale for your concern 
> iii.  please offer an alternative suggestion
> In order for your statements (both minority statements and 
> dissenting opinions on individual questions) to be published at the
> same time as the report will be published, they need to be received
> by rapporteurs, co-chairs or staff by 12.00 UTC on the 31st of
> July.
> Thanks, Thomas
> PS: In case we do not reach consensus but can only present a draft,
> the situation is not different from the first report and we will
> not have minority statements for such report.  According to our
> charter, minority statements offer a chance to oppose to a 
> consensus.  In the absence of consensus, there is no need for 
> minority statements.  Please note that in this case, we will still 
> allow for minority statement to be added to our final report.

- -- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list