[Internal-cg] Early draft for a charter

Alice Jansen alice.jansen at icann.org
Wed Jul 16 15:15:58 UTC 2014

Dear Coordination Group Members,

Please find below the descriptions/guidelines James is referring to (see
p. 9-10 of GNSO WG guidelines at
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-26mar14-en.pdf -
or p.42-43 of the GNSO Operating Procedures

The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one
of the following designations:
- Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the
recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as
Unanimous Consensus.
- Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most
- Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most
of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of
those who do not support it.
- Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there
isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different
points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of
opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly
strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it
is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.
- Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people
support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus,
Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can
happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a
suggestion made by a small number of individuals.

Best regards

On 7/16/14 3:07 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:

>The GNSO wrestles with this issue (consensus levels) in its policy
>development process. We have developed some descriptions/guidelines that
>differentiate between "unanimous" vs "consensus" vs "strong support, with
>Perhaps on of the Staff folks could post these to the list for the
>group's consideration?
>Thank you--
>James Bladel
>jbladel at godaddy.com
>> On Jul 16, 2014, at 13:30, "Daniel Karrenberg"
>><daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>> On 15.07.14 20:53 , WUKnoben wrote:
>>> I think the group has to be clear about the various consensus levels
>>> everybody has in mind when talking about "consensus". In addition it
>>> should be transparent on whose behalf CG members speak and - if at all
>>> participate in consensus calls. It could be helpful to mention it in
>>> charter.
>> This is a hard problem in general. In our specific case I would go for
>> the pragmatic approach: "No outspoken disagreement by anyone NTIA cannot
>> ignore." This is easy to check if we liaise closely with NTIA.
>> Daniel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list