Hi Gordon, Thanks for your comments on the Draft proposal for revising the NARALO Operating Principles<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?na_2007_1_1rev1_draft_naralo_operat...>. I'd like to address the issue you raised, The one thing I find worrisome, though, is this use of "rough consensus".
Since I cannot think of a better process right now, I will simply ask if there is a precedent for this in ICANN and, if so, how was it defined.
As far as I can tell, "rough consensus" has been used in quite a few of the ICANN working groups in which I've participated. First used by the IEFT, "rough consensus" has been a term used to reflect when the collective opinion of a group is overwhelmingly -- but not unanimously -- in favour or opposed to a particular point. While "full consensus" -- unanimity -- is desired, it isn't always possible. In these cases, "Rough consensus" is used to reflect the decision-making sense of the group even though some minimal opposition may exist. Rough consensus has been the decision-making standard in NARALO since its inception, though in the vast majority of situations we have achieved unanimity after ensuring that the points of view of all participants have been taken into account. Using this process in our meetings -- as opposed to having formal votes -- has saved us substantial amounts of time in our decision-making process. This in turn has allowed us to react quickly at times when speed has been a factor in being properly heard. Still, we also have formal procedures in place -- some of which are part of the proposed changes -- to have formal votes on important issues such as elections. Although we have not yet had serious (and un-reconcilable) divergence of opinion on any specific issue or motion, we must be ready with a formal voting process should this happen. 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. If there is greater divergence than that on an issue and if such divergence is impossible to reconcile, a formal vote would be called for. That's at least my interpretation as Chair. I hope this addresses your concerns. This process is indeed used elsewhere within ICANN; a Google search for "ICANN 'rough consensus' " produces more than 7,000 hits. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you still consider our use of this technique "worrisome". I hope you will vote to support the new bylaw changes. - Evan
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
I sit on a board for a community radio station. We use the Quaker consensus model. It's a specific *process* that both documents and builds consensus. It does take time to get used to working with the method, but so far we've been happy with the outcomes. No blow ups on contentious issues in three years of working together. (Fingers crossed.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making On Sep 25, 2010, at 1:16 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
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 ------
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/> ------
participants (4)
-
Dharma Dailey -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Thompson, Darlene