In ICANN-land, consensus comes in exotic varieties. For instance GNSO WGs operate by rough consensus (though we call it "consensus").... Here are the consensus thresholds for this group, from the CCWG charter: In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the
CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). 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
In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.
Any member who disagrees with the consensus-level designation made by the Chair(s), or believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted should first discuss the circumstances with the relevant sub-group chair or the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the group member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chairs of the chartering organizations or their designated representatives.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier@intel.com> wrote:
There are only two types of consensus; Unanimous (no objection), or a call by the chair of consensus. I don't think you want to vest the power implied in the latter. If you want something less than unanimous then it's a vote.
On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I am very much in favor of the idea in Avri's email:
What about the idea of recasting the SM to work on a consensus model
instead of voting? The info we got from Sidley/Adler indicates that this should be possible. Then instead of working on votes we can work on Recommendations and Advice objections to gauge consensus (e.g. no more tha n 1 SO recommends against + 1 AC advises against)
Voting, and the opting out in reaction to voting, has created complexities and weaknesses in our plan. It has also provided easy ammunition for those who don't want a membership model. A consensus-based SM should lead to a simpler and more inclusive process. The Community Forum could be made an integral part of that consensus-building process, as opposed to a mere consultation opportunity with non-voting stakeholders.
I believe this should be pursued as a matter of urgency and priority.
Greg
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Avri, That is one of my preoccupation that we avoisd voting . Tks for proposal Pls read my reply to our distinguished Paul Kavouss
2015-10-05 17:28 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
<image.gif>Dear Paul Thank you very much for your message I was really delighted to receive such a nice words from you Sorry MY message was prematurely sent before I edit that. I fact I copied some part of your message to use it in my reply However, it was sent before I finish. PLS READ THAT MESSAGE void I repeat the reply as follows Dear Paul
Thank you very much for your message and your analysis,
I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid that few SOs which would probably participate in the voting with threshold of 2/3 ( say 3 SOs with 15 votes ,the 2/3 of which become 10 would decide rejecting standard Bylaws changes .This means out of 29 weighting vote 10 reject the changes which may be beneficial for 4 ACs .Is that the way you and your overwhelming majority wants to capture the entire commune by 10 votes out of 29 VOTES ??? it is not the "few" who have DIFFICULTIES with MSM ,as I do not your counting criteria. There is no such overwhelming majority supporting the SMM. The whole accountability method was the results of many back and forth options and just few partisans pushed for SMM.
I did not severely objected to it until the issue was discussed at ICANN 53 that two ACs announced that they will not participate, another AC is also likely in a position not to participate .then remains 3 or 4 out of 7 communities .
Then ICANN clearly opposed to SMM and ,in particular, its inherent voting concept. Very probably NTIA does not wish that GAC attend 7 participate at any voting as they have mentioned that they insist that GAC must remain as an Advisory Community. Then your SMM makes changes which touches the very interests of ACs and other who do not participate at voting and still you wish to impose the decision made by 10 vote to other communities with almost double number of votes weighting criteria .The interests of a minority prevails against the interest of majority. That is not acceptable .There are several question and NOT some questions about the structure of the SMM,, its accountability, And Fiduciary to the entire community which are much more larger than those 7 SOs and ACs in the beloved SMM.
The 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would NOT win since there are much more than that who have not decided or they are abstention .You may know that if the number of abstention is more than those voted in favour or against the voting is in valid.
Either we want to dominate others or we want to talk and negotiate and collaborate with others.
There is neither superiority nor domination. The only criteria is democracy, mutual respect, working together with a view to reach consensus.
It was good to hear from you and learn from you .
We continue to learn from each other’s if we listen to each other’s
Cheers my dead Paul, I remain
Kavouss
2015-10-05 16:54 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Paul, Thank you very much for your message and your abnalysis, I wish if I could continue to support SMM. But we need to avoid the few SSs which would probably participate the voting with 273obUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF THE CONSEQUENCE THAT FEW sOs h respect, it is not the "few" who have agreed. As I read the history, the overwhelming majority support the SMM. There are some questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the precise structure of the SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a large margin.
This is not an argument that the SMM must win. But it is a counter to the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the community supports. If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views. But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.
Paul
2015-10-05 16:44 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
With respect, it is not the "few" who have agreed. As I read the history, the overwhelming majority support the SMM. There are some questions (per your "b" bullet below) about the precise structure of the SMM, but a mere review of the last 300 (!) messages on the chat and the transcripts from Paris, LA and the Board calls suggests that the if it were put to a straight vote the SMM would win by a large margin.
This is not an argument that the SMM must win. But it is a counter to the argument that the dissent of a small, but vocal, minority should be able to exercise a heckler's veto over a proposal that the majority of the community supports. If the multi-stakeholder model means anything, it means compromise in t he first instance, and respect for everyone's views. But it does not mean regression to the least common denominator or that the community's broader needs must yield to an intransigent minority.
Paul
-- Sent from myMail app for Android Monday, 05 October 2015, 10:31AM -04:00 from Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Jordan, We should not pusjh to a particular model SMM while we have disagreement a) from the Board and b) from people among CCWG ,in partzicular, if the voting arrangements are maintained and if most of the ACs refrain to pop in/ or opt for voting and c) indication from others that with such voting by the ACs the balance between the private sectors and others, on the one hand, and governments on the other hand is c ompromised, We need to listen to each others and not to few that have already agreed to SMM. Pls kindly understand that there is diverghence of views .$ Let us find out a consensus along the line that was proposed by Stev and amended by me Tks Kavouss
2015-10-05 16:25 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
:
2015-10-05 15:38 GMT+02:00 Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amshears@cdt.org>>:
+ 1 also
On 05/10/2015 13:54, James M. Bladel wrote:
+1.
Any claims that we must abbreviate accountability reforms in order to fit the IANA transition timeline has those two priorities reversed.
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
On Oct 2, 2015, at 19:44, Jordan Carter < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Thanks Avri for this nice statement of one of the key dilemmas facing this group.
The divergence between:
- the transition can't happen until accountability is sustainable, and so that requires the member model as a foundation
and
- the transition can't happen if there is a significant change such as that to a member model, and so that requires ruling out the member model
is quite stark.
FWIW my instincts are in line with Avri's. If ICANN's current level of accountability was acceptable, the community would not have demanded an accountability process alongside the transition process, and NTIA would not have agreed the two had to be intertwined and interrelated.
cheers Jordan
On 1 October 2015 at 10:38, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aavri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
The Board's critique rests on a notion that the introduction of anything new in the ICANN system will be a destabilizing factor and most be avoided.
This ignores the fact that by removing the NTIA backstop we destabilize the current system. It might have been possible to find a new balance (not that the old worked that well given the amount of discontent that existed prior to the CCWG process) by tweaking the system. The early work of the CCWG, however, showed that this was not enough. So we decided to bring back a notion that existed in the early ICANN design, the idea of membership. Membership has always been part of the kit that was available to ICANN in the multistakeholder model. An initial experiment met with some issues and instead of fixing that then, they threw the notion away without exploring possible tweaks to the system. As a result we are living in ICANN 2.0, a system that was imposed in a top down manner and one that was never fully accepted by those at the bottom.
Now, albeit in a very different configuration, the CCWG is proposing to establish a community consensus based idea of membership. I believe that this should be given a fair analysis before rejecting it. It is also important to remember that the NTIA requirements were not a prohibition of new mechanisms or structures, but rather evidence that these structure did not increase the current risk, or fact, of capture and that they could be held to account.
The Board criticism is important to look at for arguments that show the areas in which the CCWG plan either does not explain its protections against capture and its accountability checks and balances or may have gaps in these areas. If we cannot explain what we propose, or cannot close the gaps, then it becomes time to consider variations on the model or another model altogether. In my opinion, we are not there.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amshears@cdt.org>+ 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommun...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community