[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus.  And varying
definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking
about.

In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and
that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF
defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of
humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus.

The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont
presume to define.

And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition 
which often depends on voting thresholds.

Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using
modifiers of some sort. 

As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to
try and fathom.

avri

On 22-Mar-15 20:57, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear All,
>  Some  relevant questions and good reply.
> I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus  whether it is "
> rough " or " Soft"  or any thing else.
> We are CCWG and not IETF.
> In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnned
> Pls kindly do not interpret  " CONSENSUS"
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic at gmail.com
> <mailto:wisdom.stoic at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi Arun,
>
>     Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can
>     multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures
>     proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and
>     Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet
>     population of the country.
>
>     Regards,
>     Rahul Sharma
>
>     On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, Arun Sukumar
>     <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in>>
>     wrote:
>
>         Valerie D'Costa, an advisor to the CCWG, raised a couple of
>         interesting and important questions on process and substance.
>         I hope this is a faithful reproduction. 
>
>         On process:
>
>         1. What should be the role of advisors? Should they offer
>         advice on the basis of unanimity or "rough consensus", or just
>         provide input independently? 
>
>         2. Should advisors restrict their role to responding to
>         questions that have been flagged by the CCWG and routed
>         through the chairs? Or should they/ can they flag issues they
>         feel are important - weighed from their expertise. 
>
>         On substance:
>
>         1. How is the accountability process taking stock of the
>         evolving "global internet community", given that it is going
>         to be driven by numbers from the  developing world? 
>
>         2. Taking off from Q1, is the CCWG evaluating the future
>         capacity of ICANN to be truly representative in the years to come?
>
>         arun
>
>         -- 
>         -
>         @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
>         Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
>         <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
>         National Law University, New Delhi
>         Ph: +91-9871943272 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>         Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>         <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150322/6161c392/attachment.html>