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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That works for me, except that the concept of minority opinions seems to
be getting left out. I believe that any view or position that is stated
or requested to be included should be, with a showing of the support for
it, even if it's a single participant. Perhaps that is assumed, but want
to be sure.

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Consensus Discussion: Additional Thought
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 15, 2009 11:34 pm
To: "gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>


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>
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>