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

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Tue Jan 13 13:14:30 UTC 2015


Dear All ..

 

I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and
have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt
from one of the emails:  

 

"The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as
having one of the following designations:

a)      Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees;
identified by an absence of objection

b)      Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but
most agree"

 

whereas our consensus building document states:

"the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as
having one of the following designations:

*         Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks
against the recommendation in its last readings.

*         Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be
reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and
two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost
efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to
achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should
be invited to document their objections for the final report."

 

Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it
ok to have different interpretations in different though related
contexts?

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150113/c594e915/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list