[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Mar 23 21:45:35 UTC 2015


Whether we use modifiers before "consensus," we just need to have a common
understanding of what is meant in a given situation when we say "consensus."

Within the GNSO, we typically don't use a modifier before "consensus."  We
know what is meant by "consensus" in the GNSO, particularly in the PDP
context. It's defined in Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelinesl:
"Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most
agree"
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-13nov14-en.pdf

When we get out of the GNSO (like Hobbits leaving the Shire), we know that
not everyone else defines "consensus" that way, so we resort to modifiers,
to make sure that we are clearly understood.

If we are going to create new definitions of consensus for particular
groups or processes, we need to be clear what they are, and make sure they
can be identified in a way that distinguishes that "consensus" from GNSO
"consensus" or GAC "consensus" or IETF "consensus."  If we are going to
borrow existing consensus definitions, we still need to make sure they can
be identified and distinguished from other variant forms of "consensus."
Modifiers seem like a straightforward way to do so.  If there are other
ways to do so, I am open to hearing about them.  If certain kinds of
modifiers create problems, we can avoid those modifiers.  We could even use
colors -- the modifiers just need to lead us to the right meaning, they
don't need to have meaning in and of themselves.

Greg Shatan

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

>  thanks to all
> I do nit believe that for every community we need to define modifier.
> I am not in favour of copying and definition from any community
> We should deal with each subject based on its merits snd in a case by case
> basis
> Kavouss
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 22 Mar 2015, at 21:52, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> 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>:
>
>> 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>
>> 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
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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
>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/01938dd2/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list