[Internal-cg] consensus building

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 16:27:11 UTC 2014

Dear All
I am sorry I am not comfortable with" a minority disagree " because I I do
not know that the minoirity means
Plks come back to the practice of all similar cases
Either at minimum 2/3 or 4/5
I can not agree in any way to such a unqualified and quantified  term of
minority without explain and describing that by a clear cut criteria.
If people wants to discuss the entire time between 100, 17,30 ,I am ready
to do that.
Plks kindly be logical

2014-09-05 18:19 GMT+02:00 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>:

> I think the dedicated voting thresholds make the process too rigid and
> formal. I think the explanation of making an attempt to reach consensus or
> at the very least having only a minority disagree is sufficient. At the end
> of the day, rather than pure numbers the actual situation has to be taken
> into account and a decision has to be made.
> My meta comment is also that we’re spending a lot of time in designing the
> process for the controversial situations, when it is quite obvious that if
> we fail to reach broad consensus on the proposal the NTIA will in any case
> observe that their requirements have not been fulfilled.
> (I do believe we will likely get _some_ controversy no matter how perfect
> the solution will be. But it is a different thing to have a couple of
> extreme opinions vs. significant parts of the communities having a problem.)
> Jari
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140905/77811f9b/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list