Whether we use modifiers before "consensus," we just need to have a common understanding of what is meant in a given situation when we say "consensus." Within the GNSO, we typically don't use a modifier before "consensus." We know what is meant by "consensus" in the GNSO, particularly in the PDP context. It's defined in Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelinesl: "Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree" http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-13nov14-en.pdf When we get out of the GNSO (like Hobbits leaving the Shire), we know that not everyone else defines "consensus" that way, so we resort to modifiers, to make sure that we are clearly understood. If we are going to create new definitions of consensus for particular groups or processes, we need to be clear what they are, and make sure they can be identified in a way that distinguishes that "consensus" from GNSO "consensus" or GAC "consensus" or IETF "consensus." If we are going to borrow existing consensus definitions, we still need to make sure they can be identified and distinguished from other variant forms of "consensus." Modifiers seem like a straightforward way to do so. If there are other ways to do so, I am open to hearing about them. If certain kinds of modifiers create problems, we can avoid those modifiers. We could even use colors -- the modifiers just need to lead us to the right meaning, they don't need to have meaning in and of themselves. Greg Shatan On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks to all I do nit believe that for every community we need to define modifier. I am not in favour of copying and definition from any community We should deal with each subject based on its merits snd in a case by case basis Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Mar 2015, at 21:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
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
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 abandonnned Pls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS" Regards Kavouss
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
-- - @arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org> National Law University, New Delhi Ph: +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 listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------ <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*