<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
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".<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 11/10/2017 10:53 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello All, <br><br>
Sorry this is late it turned into a busy day. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<br><br>
<b>Conditions for using Consensus<br>
</b><br>
Common Goal<br><br>
Commitment to reaching consensus<br><br>
Trust and openness<br><br>
Sufficient time<br><br>
Clear process<br><br>
Active participation<br><br>
Good facilitation<br><br>
<br><br>
<b>Test for agreement<br>
</b>Do you have agreement? Check for the following:<br><br>
<b>Blocks: </b>I have a fundamental disagreement with the core of the
proposal that has not been resolved. We need to look for a new
proposal.<br><br>
<b>Stand asides: </b>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.
<br><br>
<b>Reservations</b>: I have some reservations but am willing to let the
proposal pass.<br><br>
<b>Agreement</b>: I support the proposal and am willing to implement
it.<br><br>
<b>Consensus: </b><i>No blocks, not too many stand asides or
reservations? Active agreement?<br>
</i><br>
The Review Team will not require full consensus. We discussed in
Brussels 80% agreement of the team would constitute consensus in our
recommendations. <br><br>
As we finalize our recommendations we will record each members level of
agreement. <br><br>
<br><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> 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.
<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br>
Susan <br>
</font>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:a7Zi0hmwso+ofM7ixzfsvtDYDHlBv7X5t8kiAYmtuZ85kp8ifqulQYsLMB84sndkMsPbYBQZCmBfbNKRhcE9HJjdI9x0HM97rYktHT//gQzBaGcceM8k/jvtFhVAY+Q/<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff mailing list<br>
RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>