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,
as well as the SCI wiki
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
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