[Internal-cg] consensus definitions
narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Thu Jul 17 01:24:52 UTC 2014
It would seem to me that these 'grades of consensus' or rather 'grades of agreement' should be assessed on proposals coming into the CG as well as views seen at the CG on the various topics.
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark
Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2014 10:52 AM
To: James M. Bladel; Milton L Mueller
Cc: Internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus definitions
I'm not averse to these definitions of the various 'grades of consensus' mapped out below.
I would, however, caution against calling for votes or even grading things by voting mechanisms in the processes we may (or may not adopt).
This may change in the future, but for now I would hope we can do the qualitative assessment without drawing up hard lines.
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2014 2:11 AM
Mostly correct, but at the GNSO level there are actual votes & voting threshholds. At the PDP/Working Group level, testing for consensus is significantly more subjective....
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 17:09, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> An addendum to this note: GNSO voting is structured into two "houses," contracting parties and non-contracting parties (users, essentially). No policy can pass the GNSO Council without getting some votes from both houses and (I think, but am not sure) from each stakeholder group.
> Thus, one could have "consensus" according to the rules below but a policy might not pass because its support is not adequately distributed across the different stakeholders.
> I would suggest that we assess consensus in a similar way on the CG.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:16 AM
> To: James M. Bladel
> Cc: Internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Early draft for a charter
> Dear Coordination Group Members,
> Please find below the descriptions/guidelines James is referring to
> (see p. 9-10 of GNSO WG guidelines at
> f - 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 agree.
> - 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 opposition".
>> 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 the 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.
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg