Re: comments on "Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups"

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To the CCWG-Principles:

One additional remark, which I failed to include in my original note.
Under 3.3, item 5, "consensus" is defined as "a position where a small
minority disagrees, but most agree".  In the context, it is obviously
by way of contrast with the previous item, "full consensus".
Unfortunately, the term consensus is sometimes defined using this
meaning in running text, without the contrasting "full consensus"
definition.  In such cases, it appears to require at least one person
to disagree in order for something to be called "consensus" -- a
definition that is at least counter-intuitive.

It seems to me this could be redefined as ,"a position where a small
minority may disagree, but most agree," in order to get around that
problem.  I also suggest, however, that people read the helpful
document, RFC 7282 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282.txt), for
another community's view on what "consensus" means.

Best regards,

Andrew Sullivan (speaking as an individual)

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:37:17PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> To the CCWG-Principles:
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on "Draft Uniform Framework
> for a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Life Cycle: Principles and
> Recommendations" (henceforth, "Principles"). As issues confront the
> entire ICANN community, a common set of principles for operating CCWGs
> will be helpful.

[&c.]


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx