[Internal-cg] consensus building

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Fri Sep 5 21:34:34 UTC 2014

I think that this is very sensible, Jari.  I still think it will be worth noting "... a *small* minority disagree..."

-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: 05 September 2014 17:20
To: WUKnoben
Cc: Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building

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.)


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list