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.