Dear all, The impetus behind the recommendation to address using "full or unanimous consensus" and "rough or near consensus" comes from a need to review and update the SCI Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/3.+Charter> , as well as the SCI wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home> now that the Committee has two years experience. Apart from our Charter, the SCI is further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link found in Charter), so taking ten minutes to review them is a helpful exercise in this kind of discussion. I socialized these ideas today to give Committee members time to reflect and think about them so that we can come to a determination that is, by current Charter, full consensus. Avri is right in her comment that the manner in which the PDP termination case was dealt with "improves our product". That is an excellent example. As noted today, I share your pride of having a good end product for our efforts - completed in a way one could wish all of ICANN would become. One must also understand that an individual who stands in constant opposition is, in effect, capturing the process. Holding the working group hostage until that individual deems to be satisfied, while others are not, is inequitable. Hung juries provide no mutual equity. A balanced discussion will lead to better appreciation for each other's contributions and more confidence in both the Committee and the process, as a result. With five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, rough or near consent (defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree") immediately follows full or unanimous consent. In my view, near consensus means that every Committee member has a right to stand firmly behind their stakeholder group's position - moreover present their rationale for decent in the public record; thus making it a better standard than we have today. All arguments are well-heard and documented; as opposed to the sad end to issues caught in deadlock. Two additional thoughts: 1. The Supreme Court of the United States hands down considered opinions, always allowing statements of decent. 2. The nature of human beings is that we will always find another interpretation to bring to the table if it fits our desires. Please review the embedded and suggested links as we dive deeper into this important discussion. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:40 PM To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse Hi, As I wrote in the Adobe chat, I strongly resist any attempt to change the SCI into a rough consensus group. I think it is important, as we saw with the PDP termination case, that some one holding out because they see a problem improves our product. Also, we do have a mechanism for getting around this. At any point, the SCI can make a consensus decision to go rough consensus. As someone who sometimes finds herself in a minority of one and in impasse with others in a group (happens in NCUC and NCSG too) I recognize that there are possible situations that would involve principles that could not be bridged. In such a circumstance, though, I can imagine being part of a consensus agreement to a rough consensus decision with dissenting opinion. The point, however, is that this has to be the exception and has to be agreed to by all. avri