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

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Tue Jan 13 17:47:16 UTC 2015

Hi all,

I think we are talking about two quite distinct things – the development of consensus proposals for the different functions where the communities are pulling together their own open processes;  and our own process where the big concern was how, in a small group from quite different backgrounds we avoid a particular “community” or interest group being ignored.

As someone who was in one side of the discussion, I can certainly agree with Kavouss – extensive deliberations and, I think, a good balance and shared understanding at the end.

But equally, I do understand the approach in the CCWG-Accountability and think it makes sense for them.


From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: 13 January 2015 14:06
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 .

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


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


Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>


Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150113/e4627d45/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list