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

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Fri Jan 16 18:05:47 UTC 2015

The reason why there may be different approaches to consensus building is simple: CWG and CCWG established their respected charters (including the consensus building part – which is taken from the already imposed GNSO working group rules) prior to their official take-off. Their members were already provided with related rules when they came to the table.
ICG structure was decided independently from a multistakeholder approach, the member organizations were set in advance. Then rules had to be developed between ICANN- and Non-ICANN-related members.

The outcome obviously varies but I would accept it and let the groups decide their procedures.

Best regards


From: Milton L Mueller 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:34 PM
To: Joseph Alhadeff 
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..



From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 


In your last comment are you suggesting that we would then question that communities decision on how they determine consensus?


MM: Yes and no. We could question its decision, but not its established procedure for determining consensus. We would, in effect, be questioning their application of their consensus rules to the given situation. Rules and procedures are always subject to interpretation and discretion, and parties within a process can dispute whether they were properly applied. If we see such challenges or disputes, we will have to make judgments about them. Surely you are not saying that there is consensus simply because whoever sent us a proposal response says there is? 


Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150116/a03f6ca8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list