RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

The impetus behind the recommendation to address using "full or unanimous
consensus" and "rough or near consensus" comes from a need to review and
update the SCI Charter
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/3.+Charter> , as well as the
SCI wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home>  now that the
Committee has two years experience.  Apart from our Charter, the SCI is
further governed by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (link found in
Charter), so taking ten minutes to review them is a helpful exercise in this
kind of discussion.  

 

I socialized these ideas today to give Committee members time to reflect and
think about them so that we can come to a determination that is, by current
Charter, full consensus.  

 

Avri is right in her comment that the manner in which the PDP termination
case was dealt with "improves our product".  That is an excellent example.
As noted today, I share your pride of having a good end product for our
efforts - completed in a way one could wish all of ICANN would become. One
must also understand that an individual who stands in constant opposition
is, in effect, capturing the process. Holding the working group hostage
until that individual deems to be satisfied, while others are not, is
inequitable.  Hung juries provide no mutual equity.  A balanced discussion
will lead to better appreciation for each other's contributions and more
confidence in both the Committee and the process, as a result.  

 

With five forms of consent defined in the Guidelines, rough or near consent
(defined as "a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most
agree") immediately follows full or unanimous consent.  In my view, near
consensus means that every Committee member has a right to stand firmly
behind their stakeholder group's position - moreover present their rationale
for decent in the public record; thus making it a better standard than we
have today. All arguments are well-heard and documented; as opposed to the
sad end to issues caught in deadlock.  

 

Two additional thoughts: 

1.      The Supreme Court of the United States hands down considered
opinions, always allowing statements of decent.

2.      The nature of human beings is that we will always find another
interpretation to bring to the table if it fits our desires.

 

Please review the embedded and suggested links as we dive deeper into this
important discussion.  

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA 

 

Ronald N. Andruff

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:40 PM
To: Gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] On SCI consensus and impasse

 

 

Hi,

 

As I wrote in the Adobe chat, I strongly resist any attempt to change the
SCI into a rough consensus group.

I think it is important, as we saw with the PDP termination case, that some
one holding out because they see a problem improves our product.

 

Also, we do have a mechanism for getting around this.  At any point, the SCI
can make a consensus decision to go rough consensus.  As someone who
sometimes finds herself in a minority of one and in impasse with others in a
group (happens in NCUC and NCSG too) I recognize that there are possible
situations that would involve principles that could not be bridged.  In such
a circumstance, though, I can imagine being part of a consensus agreement to
a rough consensus decision with dissenting opinion. The point, however, is
that this has to be the exception and has to be agreed to by all.

 

avri