Hi,
In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus. And varying definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking about.
In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus.
The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont presume to define.
And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition which often depends on voting thresholds.
Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using modifiers of some sort.
As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to try and fathom.
avri
In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus. And varying definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking about.
In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus.
The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont presume to define.
And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition which often depends on voting thresholds.
Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using modifiers of some sort.
As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to try and fathom.
avri
On 22-Mar-15 20:57, Kavouss Arasteh
wrote:
Dear All,Some relevant questions and good reply.I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus whether it is " rough " or " Soft" or any thing else.We are CCWG and not IETF.In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnnedPls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS"RegardsKavouss
2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>:
Hi Arun,
Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet population of the country.
Regards,Rahul Sharma
On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:
_______________________________________________Valerie D'Costa, an advisor to the CCWG, raised a couple of interesting and important questions on process and substance. I hope this is a faithful reproduction.
On process:
1. What should be the role of advisors? Should they offer advice on the basis of unanimity or "rough consensus", or just provide input independently?
2. Should advisors restrict their role to responding to questions that have been flagged by the CCWG and routed through the chairs? Or should they/ can they flag issues they feel are important - weighed from their expertise.
On substance:
1. How is the accountability process taking stock of the evolving "global internet community", given that it is going to be driven by numbers from the developing world?
2. Taking off from Q1, is the CCWG evaluating the future capacity of ICANN to be truly representative in the years to come?
arun--
-Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication GovernanceNational Law University, New DelhiPh: +91-9871943272
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|