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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also agree with Avri¹s suggestions and I also propose we stick to the use
of unanimous agreement ­ it is widely understood by everyone and its
numerical connotation is self-proclaimed. I see the decision as having more
weight if it is unanimous.
I would also like to see the category of ?True Consensus-Meeting Everyone¹s
needs: Everyone¹s true needs are met and a solution is found that everyone
feels excited about.  Not a compromise or amalgam of people¹s original
preferences, but a ³third way.²

Konstantinos


On 16/04/2009 06:47, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I agree with what Avri is suggesting but also propose that the use of
> unanimous agreement where that is the case can also be useful in reporting
> outcomes of WG deliberations...
> 
> CLO
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
>>  
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Well, consensus is a well known term as well, and I believe it is
>> significantly different from unanimous.
>> 
>> I think of unanimous as everyone being in favor.
>> 
>> I think of consensus as no one being against to the point where they say
>> they are against.  I.e. they do not have to say yes, but the also avoid
>> saying no.
>> 
>> The difference may seem small, but i think it often makes the difference
>> between being able to come to full scale agreement and not being able to
>> do so.
>> 
>> I would be in favor of defining guideline terms with the following
>> gradations:
>> 
>> - Consensus (could say Full to distinguish it from the current ICANN 2/3
>> notions of consensus),
>> - Rough Consensus,
>> - Preference (I prefer to majorty since its definition isn't loaded with
>> numerical connotations - even if have numerical guidelines)
>> - Divided opinion (euphemistically more pleasant, perhaps, then no
>> agreement)
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 18:19 -0400, 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>
>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx