[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding definitions of consensus

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello,

Perhaps there is no need to re-invent the wheel on that part of the board's
proposal, i think a number of the CMSM mechanism (related to voting
threshold/consensus building process) can be applied to MEM as well.

Regards

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:01 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Dear Bruce,
>
> don't you think that there would still be a risk of capture by "activist"
> SO/ACs?
>
> or is there some other kind of brake which would avoid that one or two
> SO/AC abuse the MEM process to block/paralyse the organisation?
>
> In addition: when reading the Board proposals I remember this sentence (p.
> 58): "For example, a decision to exercise the community power could require
> at least two SOs to support exercising the community power, and no more
> than one AC providing advice against exercising the community power."
>
> Would that mean for instance that for example two SOs could prevail with
> spilling the whole Board, even when another SO would abstain, another AC
> would oppose and a second AC would be unable to decide due to an internal
> stalemate?
>
> Shouldn't it be so that the thresholds should be calculated on the basis
> of all existing SO and AC? For instance, now we have 3 SOs and 2+2 ACs (if
> I remember well). Shouldn't the required majority be calculated on that
> basis?
>
> Otherwise we could end up with only 2 SOs deciding for the community as a
> whole - which would not meet the required "multistekeholder" principle.
>
> thanks
>
> Jorge
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce
> Tonkin
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. September 2015 12:56
> An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding definitions of consensus
>
> Hello Jorge,
>
>
> >>  If I may add two follow-up questions: are all SO and AC envisaged to
> participate in the MEM decision-process (i.e. to decide whether a decision
> is taken or not)?
>
> No - I think the concept is that all SOs and ACs are informed of the
> proposed action, and some minimum threshold (presumably more than 1)  need
> to agree to join the SO or AC that initiated the petition for discussion.
>
>
> >>  What happens if various SO/AC decide not to participate at all in
> >> such processes
>
> Nothing.
>
>
> >>  and/or is there a minimal threshold of participation in the MEM for
> the MEM to become operational?
>
> Yes  the idea was that there should be a minimum threshold.  We left it to
> the CCWG to discuss what would be appropriate.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150918/737a1611/attachment.html>