LOL! I love both of your wordings. Yes, I agree that this is the way that NARALO works and I'm quite happy with it. At the very beginning when we were setting things up I was trepidatious. Now, I find that we all work together quite smoothly and well. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John R. Levine Sent: Sat 9/25/2010 1:16 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Rough Consensus"
As always, the preference is for full consensus. Rough consensus (which I personally would consider to be less than 10% opposition) is usable but far less desirable than unanimity. ...
Rough consensus has worked pretty well in the IETF. The only groups I know of that work by full consensus are Quaker meetings and criminal juries. The Quakers have a tradition that you "stand aside" if you disagree with the majority, but not so vehemently that you are willing to block everyone else. Quakers being Quakers, it works for them, but anywhere else it means that the group is often held hostage to one stubborn member. In juries, where someone's life is often in the balance, that's a good thing. When we're deciding how to word yet another comment to ICANN, it's not, so I agree that rough consensus is appropriate here. R's, John ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/> ------