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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All participants in the WG will be required to submit SOIs. If who 
supports what is properly documented it will allow the Council to
sufficiently analyize the support and claimed level of consensus
for each view or position.

But I also think the BGC's recommendations included the concept of 
appropriate size, and I would question the concept of a completely
open WG in the sense that any number of participants are allowed.
It would not be wise on the part of the *managers* to allow a WG 
to become unmanageable, or on the other hand to proceed if there is 
not a balance of representation and sufficient participation.

Especially when a WG is comtemplating binding policy the Council 
must act as good managers and be certain that the WG is well 
*staffed* and appropriately equipped to deal with the task they are 
being assigned.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Consensus Discussion: Additional Thought
From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 16, 2009 6:19 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx


On 16 Apr 2009, at 12:57, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>> One way out of this conundrum is for the chair to
>> determine a (possibly rough) consensus,
>
> That's precisely what we should avoid. The end result of many of
> these WG efforts will be policy recommendations, that if accepted,
> will become binding on contracted parties. A PDP of that nature
> is more akin to a legistative act than it is to an IETF RFC or a
> W3C BP.

One important point in parliamentary processes is that you have a 
finite set of people on which to count votes. If the your set of 
votes can be stacked by any sufficiently resourced and determined 
adversary, precise numbers create an illusion of certainty, but don't 
actually buy you much.

That's why I emphasized reasoned objections, and the importance of 
council.

Put differently, the fundamental point here is this point from 
yesterday's call:

> Tim emphasized an important point that any “consensus” policy is 
> enforceable on the contracted parties and those so obligated will 
> want to be sure that any consensus reached was definitive and 
> rigorously defined/enforced. As a result, it may be difficult to 
> get past headcount and numbers if we expect others to be bound to 
> the results.

https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/working_group_team:20090416010511-0-30060/original/WGT%2520Conf%2520Call-Summary%2520(15%2520Apr%252009).pdf

The critical distinction in assumptions is that you see the chair's 
consensus call as the critical predetermination whether or not a 
result should become consensus policy. I see it as a tool to move the 
group forward to a recommendation that is then ratified (or not!) by a 
better legitimized council.

Of course, that's a fundamental dependency on whatever the policy 
process will say.