<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus
- To: Working Group <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:49:27 -0500
FYI from [gnso-ppsc]
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: 12 November 2010 09:41:34 EST
> To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc] issue of rough or near consensus
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In anticipation of Jeff's issue concerning the inclusion of the words "rough"
> and "near" in
>
>> This is sometimes just referred to as Rough or Near Consensus.
>
>
> I think leaving them in is very important since people who are new to the
> ICANN context do not understand ICANN's usage of consensus to mean something
> other than unanimity.
>
> What might be an solution (though I think this would need to be passed by the
> WT) would be to include a footnote that says something like:
>
> The terms _Rough or Near Consensus_ are included so that those who are
> unfamiliar with ICANN usage can associate the definition of _Consensus_ with
> other definitions and terms of art they may be more familiar with. It should
> be noted that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all
> reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term
> _Consensus_ as this may have legal implications.
>
>
> Note: I am offering this recommendation because I do wish to be accused, as I
> was in the meeting, of holding up the release of this report by not complying
> with the Registries position. In this case at least, I think there is a
> simple solution that preserves the work yet hopefully can assuage the
> Registries.
>
> a.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|