Dear Martin, I DO NOT BELIEVE, YOU NEED ANY CROSS REF ERNCE TO SOMEBODY ELSE , VIEWS. It is his views and no more . Voting is one of the major and fundamental criteria in any democracy society. LEADERSHIP AND PRESEIDENTS AND PARTIES TO TAKE POWER IN ANY DENMOCRATIC COUNTRY are electedf through voting No doubt ,every and utmost efforts should be made to avoid voting at conférences, meeting and foa and take an internationally agreed approach of CONSENSUS BUILDING. However, if othe circumstances do not allow that we need to look for avaialble alternative. Having said that I am in favour of consensus ( without anxy adjective) building KAVOUSS 2014-08-13 9:22 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Dear Kavouss,
OFF LIST as I generally agree with both Milton’s comments and your reply to him.
My reference to WCIT was to the statement from Dr Touré about voting and the breakdown in the search for compromise that we saw at the end of the process.
I think I have been quite clear about my views on consensus (hence why this is off list) – soft, rough, whatever: if it leaves a significant party out, it is not consensus and will break down later. The discussions should never try to impose an unreasonable compromise.
As you note, the process should be one of continued discussion to find real consensus (within the constraints of time), to which I would add the importance of there being a real effort to achieve this consensus by all parties.
Regards
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* 12 August 2014 19:16 *To:* Martin Boyle
*Cc:* Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process
Dear Martin
I do not clearly understand your illusion to WCIT.
Please just tell me, what happened if the views of those dealing with naming, or numbers, or protocle remained a minority views and the rest are joining what do you call rough consensus.
Let us imagine also that we go ahead with such soft consensus in which a valid views of one of these groups are not taken into account
Do you still believe that such a soft or rough consensus disregarding the views of one key player could be considered a valid outcome
Pls comment.
I am of the strong view that the chair should further and further discuss until we find a real ( not rough .not soft ,not hard ) consensus
Kavouss
2014-08-12 19:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Hi All,
First thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for his paper. I greatly like the idea of standards of good behaviour and mutual respect – and I’m pleased to see that this is already very much the framework for the way that the ICG works. I’d also note that the analysis of shades of grey in levels of support is interesting – was it Patrik who first noted the two extremes (non-substantial and substantial issues) and the level of consensus that might be needed? I’m just not sure I know how to use them…
I’d firmly endorse the aim that “the ICG … reach at least Consensus on the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to be forwarded to the NTIA” subject to our continued effort to try to achieve full/unanimous consensus or (at least) to have addressed address points of concern.
However, I do not like processes that are supposed to be by consensus being resolved by voting (cf WCIT): voting leaves winners and losers. It also means that people get lazy and fail to look for compromise or common ground or ways to address “reasonable” concerns. That aversion is not really addressed by supermajorities: even at an 80% supermajority, all the domain name registries or all the government representatives or all GNSO members could be overruled. At 85% all the ccTLD registries, at 90% all the gTLD registries could be ignored.
I do recognise the need for a mechanism that allows us to come to a final recommendation and I’m afraid that I do not see any magic wand. But I would suggest a number of basic principles:
· The aim of the discussion should be to try to find a solution where **no member of the ICG still maintains serious opposition to the outcome.** Reasons for objections should be given, allowing the ICG wherever possible to try to address those concerns.
· **Recourse to any form of voting should be the exception.** Its use might be fine for non-substantive issues. For substantive issues, at least none of the “customer groups” (numbers, protocols, gTLDs or ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed.
· Group members who still have problems with the evaluation should be invited to **identify possible ways in which the proposal could be modified to make it acceptable to them.**
· Discussions should continue until **no “IANA customer” group is firmly opposed.**
One final point: I would be willing to allow anyone who feels that they have not been heard to put a minority view into the final report. I’d rather that did not happen, but if the views are strong enough, it would be best to have then documented in the report than to be first aired in the discussion that follows the publication of our final report.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* 11 August 2014 20:48 *To:* Drazek, Keith
*Cc:* Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process
Dear All,
Undoubtedly, it would be super majority either 2/3 or 4/5 .
Kavouss
2014-08-11 18:18 GMT+02:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>:
I agree that we will need a clear process for determining consensus that falls somewhere on the spectrum between humming and requiring a unanimous vote.
If we get in to discussions of voting, we'll also need to address the thresholds required to establish consensus. Is it a simple majority? Super-majority? Unanimous voting is an unhelpful requirement that would likely obstruct our work and our ability to deliver, so I believe that should be a non-starter for the ICG. We need to avoid the possibility of one dissenting vote undermining an otherwise strongly supported recommendation that represents broad community consensus.
However, if/when there is not full consensus, it will be important that we have a mechanism for expressing dissenting opinions. The GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group employs a "minority statement" mechanism to allow for all views to be expressed when there is consensus but not unanimity on a particular topic. Perhaps we should consider a similar mechanism for the ICG.
Keith
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process
Hello Colleagues,
From the experience of the past few weeks, unfortunately we can conclude that the current process is not successful. Rather than meting out blame or praise, we need to understand why it's not working. Group dynamics and a bit of sociology can help.
Our Coordination Group is different from what some of us/you have come to consider as "normal". The technical bodies (IETF, IAB) have developed an efficient process where "rough consensus" is understood and accepted. But other components of the ICG have different habits, and also a different accountability mechanism: however attractive "rough" may be, it is insufficient. For example, the GAC has its own rules (a joint position can only be reached by unanimity), and the ALAC routinely conducts all its votes on a full-membership basis (each member has to say ay, nay, abstain, or be noted down as not having cast a vote).
So the challenge is this: is the "rough consensus" really adapted to all the needs of our group? With the experience gained collectively in London, and especially since then, I would recommend a dual approach:
A/ MATTERS REQUIRING ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE (typically, to be decided as soon as possible, with the exception of our Transition plan) - Chair structure and membership, - Charter of the ICG, - choice of Secretariat (ICANN or outside of ICANN, or a mixture of both), - choice of near-final drafts and approval of final draft of our Transition plan, before presentation to the NTIA.
B/ MATTERS WHERE OTHER FORMS OF DECISION-MAKING ARE ACCEPTABLE - Appraisal of specific community input, as a contribution to the ICG's recommended plan (e.g. ALAC should appraise input from its own community before submitting it to the whole ICG), - external relations and communications of the ICG (once the Chair structure has been chosen and populated, it may wish to ask Chair, or another of its members, to be the point of contact), - administrative & logistic matters, in conjunction with the chosen Secretariat (here too, delegation would be possible).
I'm prepared to provide a more detailed proposal for the above items.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> À: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> Cc: "Coordination Group" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 11 Août 2014 10:40:08 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process
Dear Wolf Thank you very much for reply My point is that if one or more ICG Mmember(s) is7are againszt the ruling of the Chir ,They could raise their issue and the matter must be settled by simple explanation or if not resolved by voting . I.E. CHAIR DOES NOT HAVE DECISION MAKING POWER ON HE OR HIS OWN WISHES RATHER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VIEWS OF MEMBERS Regards KAVOUSS Regards
2014-08-11 8:33 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström < paf@frobbit.se > :
On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben < wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de > wrote:
The chair’s designation that consensus is reached is not her/his own decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of course this designation can be challenged by members. And this is what triggers your question about “If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given ...”. I’m open to any helpful suggestion on how we could procede in such a case. In the end consensus - as defined – has to be achieved.
Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly agree with.
We must deliver.
This implies we must be able to reach consensus.
The last couple of weeks discussions on various topics makes me a bit pessimistic on the ability for us to reach consensus, but I am optimistic, always optimistic, on peoples ability and interest in actually deliver.
Remember that the chair is calling on the consensus question, not the substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a minimum and process issues.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg