Alissa
-----Original Message----- I would be fine to replace “small minority” with “minority.” That is, if a minority of any size — from 1 to 14 ICG reps — cannot have its objections accommodated after extended discussion, those objections should be documented and the group should move on. I would resist defining “small” in any other way, since again our numeric representation in the group is arbitrary and has unclear meaning of its own.
I have real trouble with this. First of all, it is self-contradictory. If numeric representation is arbitrary, then the concept of a majority is also meaningless; in other words you have defeated the basis for ANY kind of preponderance of opinion among the group. So out goes the definition of "minority" More fundamentally, the idea that a group that was formed on the basis of providing a consensus outcome now suddenly declares that a bare numerical majority can overrule others and move on is an invitation to abuse. I think we do have to define "small" and I think we do have to avoid outcomes where an entire group category (e.g., GNSO people, or tech community people) is opposed.
But if your request is that the ICG cannot progress a document that has an objection from any minority, or from an operational community minority — that, I believe, is not workable. That allows 1 or more ICG reps to prevent the ICG’s work from going forward. Specifically, it puts us in a situation where
I don't think one rep should be able to hold us up. I don't think two should be able to, either. I think the sweet spot is around 4 or 5. Not derived through mathematical science, but not entirely arbitrary either. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/