[RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] Consensus

[Alan Greenberg]

Having just gone through the Terms of Reference with a reasonably 
fine-tooth comb, and in particula the section on Consensus, I have to 
say I am confused.

The concept of consensus (as defined by the GNSO and imported into 
RTs is implicitly not explicitly quantified. The ToR says that polls 
can be used in rare circumstances but are not normal. Susan's 
definition of "No Blocks" is also at odds with the GNSO view in that 
it explicitly says that Consensus (as opposed to Full Consensus) can 
have a small number of people disagreeing (the 80% rule used by the 
ALAC is a quantification of "a small number".

The ToR goes to great lengths to describe that the level of consensus 
is the Chair's call, and includes about 1 1/2 pages of description 
how the Chair might do this and then how multiple levels of appeal 
may be carried out.

I have no great desire to play god and then have process upon process 
of dispute mechanisms and appeal mechanisms, which is why I proposed 
the 80% rule. But I can live with anything that will allow us to move 
forward and minimize the agony of coming to closure.

Alan

At 11/10/2017 10:53 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

>Hello All,
>
>Sorry this is late it turned into a busy day.
>
>Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in 
>which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the 
>best interest of the whole.
>
>
>
>Conditions for using Consensus
>
>Common Goal
>
>Commitment to reaching consensus
>
>Trust and openness
>
>Sufficient time
>
>Clear process
>
>Active participation
>
>Good facilitation
>
>
>
>Test for agreement
>Do you have agreement? Check for the following:
>
>Blocks: I have a fundamental disagreement with the core of the 
>proposal that has not been resolved. We need to look for a new proposal.
>
>Stand asides: I can't support this proposal because ... But I don't 
>want to stop the group, so I'll let the decision happen without me.
>
>Reservations: I have some reservations but am willing to let the 
>proposal pass.
>
>Agreement: I support the proposal and am willing to implement it.
>
>Consensus: No blocks, not too many stand asides or reservations? 
>Active agreement?
>
>The Review Team will not require full consensus.  We discussed in 
>Brussels 80% agreement of the team would constitute consensus in our 
>recommendations.
>
>As we finalize our recommendations we will record each members level 
>of agreement.
>
>
>
>  I didn't have time to flesh this out more but thought it would be 
> a start.  Unfortunately will not be on the call tomorrow due to the 
> GNSO Council meeting.
>
>
>Susan
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:a7Zi0hmwso+ofM7ixzfsvtDYDHlBv7X5t8kiAYmtuZ85kp8ifqulQYsLMB84sndkMsPbYBQZCmBfbNKRhcE9HJjdI9x0HM97rYktHT//gQzBaGcceM8k/jvtFhVAY+Q/
>
>_______________________________________________
>RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff mailing list
>RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff/attachments/20171011/9ddf7338/attachment.html>