Thanks for the quick responses .. Just to clarify that I was not trying to suggest changing our document nor imposing uniformity on other processes .. I just thought the difference is worth noting, worth considering and worth being clarified to the community if need arise .. Maybe the question at the end of my email was not the best way to express this J .. Dear Mr. Arasteh, Apologies for sending my below email before reading your email to the Accountability mailing list .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:06 PM To: joseph alhadeff Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' .. Dear Manal Thank you for yr message. Do you suggest we( ICG) harmonize ourselves with their ( CCWG ) . Since our document was agreed after very extensive deliberations I do not support that we make any changes in ICH to our position. I have already referred to ICG consensus building yesterday but the CCWG did not react I leave it as it is . Kavouss 2015-01-13 14:59 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process. We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list. Joe On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails: "The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree" whereas our consensus building document states: "the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations: · Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. · Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report." Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts? Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ 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

Fair enough .. Many thanks Martin .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:47 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh; joseph alhadeff Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' .. Hi all, I think we are talking about two quite distinct things – the development of consensus proposals for the different functions where the communities are pulling together their own open processes; and our own process where the big concern was how, in a small group from quite different backgrounds we avoid a particular “community” or interest group being ignored. As someone who was in one side of the discussion, I can certainly agree with Kavouss – extensive deliberations and, I think, a good balance and shared understanding at the end. But equally, I do understand the approach in the CCWG-Accountability and think it makes sense for them. Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 13 January 2015 14:06 To: joseph alhadeff Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' .. Dear Manal Thank you for yr message. Do you suggest we( ICG) harmonize ourselves with their ( CCWG ) . Since our document was agreed after very extensive deliberations I do not support that we make any changes in ICH to our position. I have already referred to ICG consensus building yesterday but the CCWG did not react I leave it as it is . Kavouss 2015-01-13 14:59 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process. We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list. Joe On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails: "The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree" whereas our consensus building document states: "the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations: · Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. · Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report." Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts? Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ 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

No, I am suggesting that if a community determines that consensus in their community is reached in a certain way and they provide no information related to reaching that consensus, that would be a basis for asking them to provide the information to make the application complete. Only the community can determine what is a community consensus and if it was reached. On 1/13/2015 1:55 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:

Joe and others:

I guess Im unclear: if we "catalog" how the various communities determined that they had reached consensus, does that mean we could make the determination that their proposal failed to do so? If so, then what?

Just want to be clear, as I see this particular approach as problematic. It would be much cleaner to acknowledge that the communities achieved consensus by their own definition, and note this in our report without endorsement or reservation.

Thanks,

J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

On Jan 13, 2015, at 06:00, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:

...

I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process. We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list.

Joe On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:

...

Dear All ..

I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails:

"The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection

b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"

whereas our consensus building document states:

"the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations:

·*Recommendation by consensus *- when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings.

·*Recommendation *- a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report."

Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts?

Kind Regards

--Manal

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I agree here. It’s up to the communities to define how they understand to achieve consensus. We can check against their own criteria only. If I’m correct the CWG and the CCWG use the same definitions. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 10:25 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' .. No, I am suggesting that if a community determines that consensus in their community is reached in a certain way and they provide no information related to reaching that consensus, that would be a basis for asking them to provide the information to make the application complete. Only the community can determine what is a community consensus and if it was reached. On 1/13/2015 1:55 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Joe and others: I guess Im unclear: if we "catalog" how the various communities determined that they had reached consensus, does that mean we could make the determination that their proposal failed to do so? If so, then what? Just want to be clear, as I see this particular approach as problematic. It would be much cleaner to acknowledge that the communities achieved consensus by their own definition, and note this in our report without endorsement or reservation. Thanks, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy On Jan 13, 2015, at 06:00, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process. We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list. Joe On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All .. I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails: "The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree" whereas our consensus building document states: "the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations: <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report." Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts? Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ 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

Milton In your last comment are you suggesting that we would then question that communities decision on how they determine consensus? Joe Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

And I am also suggesting that it is possible – not likely, mind you, but possible – that the problem could be more than just one of lacking information. Keep in mind that when we receive these proposals or reports, we are not receiving them from “their community” we are receiving them from whatever small subset of that community is in control of the administrative process of transmitting the report to us and/or in charge of holding the pen. There could be a misunderstanding, inconsistency, or power games played among subsets that would lead to a problem. I know ya’ll don’t like to hear this stuff but we’d be naïve not to recognize it as a possibility.

--MM

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 4:26 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..

No, I am suggesting that if a community determines that consensus in their community is reached in a certain way and they provide no information related to reaching that consensus, that would be a basis for asking them to provide the information to make the application complete. Only the community can determine what is a community consensus and if it was reached. On 1/13/2015 1:55 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Joe and others:

I guess Im unclear: if we "catalog" how the various communities determined that they had reached consensus, does that mean we could make the determination that their proposal failed to do so? If so, then what?

Just want to be clear, as I see this particular approach as problematic. It would be much cleaner to acknowledge that the communities achieved consensus by their own definition, and note this in our report without endorsement or reservation.

Thanks,

J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy

On Jan 13, 2015, at 06:00, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process. We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list.

Joe On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: Dear All ..

I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails:

"The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"

whereas our consensus building document states: "the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations: · Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. · Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report."

Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts?

Kind Regards --Manal

_______________________________________________ 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

The reason why there may be different approaches to consensus building is simple: CWG and CCWG established their respected charters (including the consensus building part – which is taken from the already imposed GNSO working group rules) prior to their official take-off. Their members were already provided with related rules when they came to the table. ICG structure was decided independently from a multistakeholder approach, the member organizations were set in advance. Then rules had to be developed between ICANN- and Non-ICANN-related members. The outcome obviously varies but I would accept it and let the groups decide their procedures. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:34 PM To: Joseph Alhadeff Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' .. From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] In your last comment are you suggesting that we would then question that communities decision on how they determine consensus? MM: Yes and no. We could question its decision, but not its established procedure for determining consensus. We would, in effect, be questioning their application of their consensus rules to the given situation. Rules and procedures are always subject to interpretation and discretion, and parties within a process can dispute whether they were properly applied. If we see such challenges or disputes, we will have to make judgments about them. Surely you are not saying that there is consensus simply because whoever sent us a proposal response says there is? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

James: I guess Im unclear: if we "catalog" how the various communities determined that they had reached consensus, does that mean we could make the determination that their proposal failed to do so? MM: Even if we use their own criteria for reaching consensus (which I agree we should), it is possible that we could determine that they did not reach it. Indeed, if it is _not_ possible for us to reach a finding that there is not a proper consensus for a proposal, there is no point for us to even go through that process, is there? A lack of real consensus, or a fake claim of consensus is likely to be relatively easy to spot. There would be howls of objections from people whose views were ignored or trodden upon and corroboration from the record. We cannot assume that whoever is in control of the pen and happens to send us the proposal defines consensus and is incapable of either lying or being mistake. Fundamentally, we are not doing our jobs if there is no possibility of a finding of failed consensus on our part. And our check at this level has a severely practical rationale: we shouldn't be sending something out for public comment unless we are pretty sure it has something close to the required level of support, at least from the operational communities who prepared the proposals. Otherwise we are just wasting everyone's time. As for this question: If so, then what? MM: Answer is obvious. We send it back.