I
think Martin makes very good points here.
I
like his proposed principles, every one of them.
I
must confess that I have been wincing at the way the word “consensus” is
(ab)used routinely in these circles. Either it is truly consensus, and everyone
either agrees or agrees not to object, or it is _something else_. Will we please
stop trying to apply the term “consensus” to supermajority voting processes? My
academic commitment to verbal clarity and directness is screaming at me that
this is wrong.
The
IETF concept of “rough” consensus is an informal mechanism that is suitable for
a more homogeneous environment in which adherence to standards is voluntary
anyway, but in an environment with binding outcomes and political factions, it
can and, in the ICANN context, frequently HAS merely provided a rationalization
for ignoring significant minority points of view.
--MM
From:
internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On
Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:24
PM
To: Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg]
Consensus building process
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