[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