Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Consensus Discussion: Additional Thought

[Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>]

With apologies for chiming in late, I'll note that we're on a slippery  
slope here, by counting votes too precisely in a set that's ill- 
defined and subject to capture in the first place.
*If* we're going down the route of an open Working Group model, *then*  
these thresholds (with the exception of the 100% one) simply don't  
make sense.

One way out of this conundrum is for the chair to determine a  
(possibly rough) consensus, and to give objecting parties the ability  
to either simply object, or object more formally and for the record.   
These kinds of formal objections can then be considered as a policy is  
moved forward through the process, e.g., at the council level.
In the chair's determination, some judgment can be exercised:  E.g.,  
if numerous participants indicate that they will object formally (but  
are evidently representing a single view), that objection might be  
taken less seriously than a set of objection that comes from a number  
of different stakeholders. Playing with words, one could define  
situations for consensus (strong support, no formal objections, few or  
no simple objections), rough consensus (strong support, a significant  
number of simple objections, no formal objections), and dissent  
(strong support, but formal objections).
In any event, the key here is a combination of both judgment and  
accountability on the chair's side, and of keeping good records.
The basic assumption in the accountability model of this approach is  
that some party can overrule the chair's finding of consensus, and  
that this party will have a decision model that is better defined than  
the working group's.  The model also assumes that the process enables  
reasoned (!) opposition to be recorded, and that a massive failure of  
the chair to actually move forward in the group's sense will be  
detected and lead to overruling the chair.
Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@xxxxxx>







On 16 Apr 2009, at 00:19, Ken Bour wrote:

> Tim and WGT:
>
> On the basis of the 100% requirement in Tim's first threshold, it  
> would seem that the term "unanimous" has the same meaning as "full  
> consensus."  I think the term "unanimous" is more common (and easier  
> to recognize) and I suggest that we replace it for "full  
> consensus."  Does anyone else share that view?
> If, as discussed on the call, we elevate "rough consensus" to  
> something closer to 2/3 level, we might need another category, as  
> Avri suggested, for "majority."   Does "Majority" work?
> If so, the hierarchy might look like:
>
>         Unanimous (100%)
>         Rough Consensus (2/3)
>         Majority (> 1/2)
>         No Agreement (0%)
>
> I note that "minority" would be duplicative since it is the inverse  
> of majority.
> Ken Bour
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> ] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:49 AM
> To: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Doodle Reminder: Choose a Drafting Team
>
>
> I am okay with moving on to the next stage. However, if we are in
> consensus on doing that, such consensus should be taken to mean that  
> we
> are committed to the summaries as written. As they stand, they are a
> good starting point but clearly not the end point.
>
> For example, I would prefer the following for consideration as  
> consensus
> thresholds within WGs. The idea is too keep it simple yet allow for  
> all
> viewpoints and positions to be moved forward in any subsequent reports
> to the Council and/or Board. Also, each should be demonstrable beyond
> the gut feeling of the Chair(s) of the working group.
>
> Suggested Consensus Thresholds:
>
> 1. Full Consensus - Everyone is in confirmed agreement (100%).
>
> 2. Rough Consensus - A clear and demonstrable majority (more than 50%)
> are in agreement. Minority views must be recognized and included in  
> any
> subsequent reports.
>
> 3. No Consensus - It cannot be demonstrated that a clear majority  
> are in
> agreement (no view or position has more than 50% agreement). All
> views/positions are Minority Views and all are included in any
> subsequent report.
>
> 4. Minority View - Any viewpoint or position that has support of one  
> or
> more participants but less than a majority (50% or less).
>
> Reports must demonstrate each of the above by explicitly associating
> supporting WG participants with each view/position.
>
> Tim
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Doodle Reminder: Choose a Drafting Team
> From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 13, 2009 10:14 am
> To: ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>
> I also note that there has bee very little or NO discussion of the
> reviews put together by our sub-teams.  If everyone is fine with the
> summaries that have been submitted we can move to next stage of work.
> If not, we need to discuss and come to some consensus so that we can
> move forward.  Please, if you have a view about one of the summaries,
> please speak up now or forever hold your peace.
>
> J. Scott
>
> j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark |
> Yahoo! Inc. | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
>
>
>   From: Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 7:50:17 AM
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Doodle Reminder: Choose a Drafting Team
>
>  WG Team Members:
>
> At our last teleconference on 26 March, J. Scott asked each member to
> please identify, in the next two weeks, which of the two teams
> (Operating Model vs. Charter Guidelines) he/she would like to join  
> when
> we get to that point.
>
> In the meeting minutes, I mentioned having created a Doodle poll to
> facilitate that selection process at:
> http://www.doodle.com/fchkyguxbrxmwmwa
>
> There have only been two respondents thus far (Subbiah and Iliya),  
> so I
> thought I would send out a reminder.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken Bour