Dear Peter,

In response to your question regarding the consensus model to be used by the RZERC Review Team the following:

ccNSO WGs and Committees act by consensus, which means that the vast majority of the wg or committee participants support a proposal and there is no major opposition (either in numbers or position), however this should never be to mean that unanimity is required and - just as important - the process of reaching consensus is clear to all and allows for at least two “readings”. This permits all to think through the arguments again and participation of all. From this perspective the concepts “full” or "rough” consensus are not meaningful and are avoided.

What may come close to “rough” consensus is a call for “temperature of the room”, which at times is used as a method to seek an indication for the level of support, but should never be taken as a mechanism for decision or determining whether there is consensus.

Applying this to the RZERC RT, we suggest that the RT will act by consensus, without defining rough or full consensus, ensuring that decisions are taken with proper discussions, after two rounds of discussion.

Best regards,
Alejandra

--

Photograph
Alejandra Reynoso
Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt
P: +502 23688565
E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt
18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109)
Guatemala, Guatemala
www.gt



On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:38 PM Joke Braeken via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councillors,

I am forwarding the email below to you on behalf of Peter Koch, ccNSO appointed member to the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC). Read more about RZERC here: https://www.icann.org/rzerc

Best regards,

Joke Braeken
joke.braeken@icann.org



On 17/05/2022, 00:14, "Peter Koch" <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:

    Dear ccNSO Council,

    the RZERC Committee is undertaking a Charter review and agreed to
    instantiate with the RZERC membership, with RT membership
    adopting any changes occuring to RZERC membership. This implies
    that my successor on RZERC will also be seated on the RT, later this year.

    The RT still has to set its own procedures and has used the RZERC
    operational procedures as a starting point.  Currently, the main
    question is the form of consensus that the RT should use for
    the review and the final report.  The two options on the table
    are "full consensus" and "rough consensus".

    RSSAC has already signalled they prefer "full consensus".

    My preliminary recommendation would be to aim for "rough consensus" with the
    option of statement of dissent. 

    Obviously the question of how to arrive at the decision for the desired
    consensus model is 'recursive', but given its very nature, a full
    consensus will be necessary from my perspective.

    On a slightly related note, this might have to be seen in light of RSSAC's
    recent move w.r.t. the RSS GWG.  Any difficulties for the RSSAC to become
    part of a full consensus could stall the whole process.

    The ccNSO council's advice would be appreciated.
    Of course, I would be happy to elaborate further on this discussion.

    Kind regards,
       Peter

_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.