On Feb 22, 2013 2:09 PM, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
(Co-) Chair(s) of the WG where the policy is being developed
could be
allowed to take the initiative of declaring on the list that
there were
sufficient grounds (for example: overwhelming support in
Discussion Phase
and no impact) for considering earlier support as carrying over
into the
Review Phase, and that because of this silence would
exceptionally be
taken as consent.
I think the current system is designed to make sure such interpretation is not needed, reducing the chance for errors and misunderstandings. As Gert pointed out repeatedly, we are dealing with two outliers here anyway, significantly changing the process just for those seems unwise. Why not ask all chairs to state explicitly in all their announcements that new ayes and nays are needed for that specific phase? Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.