[Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Jan 13 21:25:30 UTC 2015
No, I am suggesting that if a community determines that consensus in
their community is reached in a certain way and they provide no
information related to reaching that consensus, that would be a basis
for asking them to provide the information to make the application
complete. Only the community can determine what is a community
consensus and if it was reached.
On 1/13/2015 1:55 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> Joe and others:
>
> I guess Im unclear: if we "catalog" how the various communities
> determined that they had reached consensus, does that mean we could
> make the determination that their proposal failed to do so? If so,
> then what?
>
> Just want to be clear, as I see this particular approach as
> problematic. It would be much cleaner to acknowledge that the
> communities achieved consensus by their own definition, and note this
> in our report without endorsement or reservation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> J.
> ____________
> James Bladel
> GoDaddy
>
> On Jan 13, 2015, at 06:00, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto: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/db76e81c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list