[Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..

[Manal Ismail]

Thanks for the quick responses ..

Just to clarify that I was not trying to suggest changing our document nor imposing uniformity on other processes ..

I just thought the difference is worth noting, worth considering and worth being clarified to the community if need arise .. Maybe the question at the end of my email was not the best way to express this J ..

 

Dear Mr. Arasteh, 

Apologies for sending my below email before reading your email to the Accountability mailing list ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal   

 

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:06 PM
To: joseph alhadeff
Cc: Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..

 

Dear Manal

Thank you for yr message.

Do you suggest we( ICG) harmonize ourselves with their ( CCWG ) .

Since our document was agreed after very extensive deliberations

I do not support that we make any changes in ICH to our position.

I have already referred to ICG consensus building yesterday but the CCWG did not react 

I leave it as it is .

Kavouss 

 

2015-01-13 14:59 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process.  We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list.

Joe

 

On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:

	Dear All ..

	 

	I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails:  

	 

	"The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

	a)      Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection

	b)      Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"

	 

	whereas our consensus building document states:

	"the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations:

	·         Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings.

	·         Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report."

	 

	Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts?

	 

	Kind Regards

	--Manal

	 

	 

	 

	_______________________________________________
	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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150113/437a6d64/attachment-0001.html>