Re: [gnso-raa-b] Comments on Section V and Process B Statement of Support

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In defense of Steve's use of language, in ICANN there varieties of 'consensus'.

the top three are:

- full or unanimous consensus - everybody but everybody

- rough or near consensus, where most all agree except for perhaps one or two 
and their viewpoint has been fully expressed, understood and documented.

- consensus policy where a supermajority defined as some percentage of each 
house of the GNSO Council agrees in a vote.

So, when using the word consensus in the GNSO at least, it has to be qualified 
for people to know which meaning is meant.

a.



On 20 May 2010, at 19:07, Holly Raiche wrote:

> HI Steve
> 
> I think this is a reasonable summary of where the team got to.  My one 
> comment - sheer pedantry - is in the second paragraph.  Either there is 
> consensus - which implies general but not necessarily total agreement - or 
> you have unanimous agreement - which is everyone.  You can't have unanimous 
> consensus.  so please just drop the word consensus
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Holly
> On 21/05/2010, at 4:35 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for these edits, Statton. The attached accepts virtually all of them. 
>>  The exceptions are when you have either edited the text of Proposed Process 
>> A, or retorted directly to the supporting statement (e.g., in the reference 
>> to "active" participation).  Obviously the supporters of Process A could do 
>> the same and critique what is in your supporting statement, but rather than 
>> play tit for tat I suggest that the supporting statements respond to the 
>> Proposed Process lists only.  (For the same reason, I think your footnote is 
>> not appropriate with regard to "active" participation, but I leave it up to 
>> you and your colleagues whether or not to retain it.)     
>>  
>> I have also made the changes I suggested a few minutes ago to the sentence 
>> concerning the position of Avri and others.   I also changed the last 
>> sentence of the 2d paragraph because both proposed processes call for public 
>> comment. 
>>  
>> I believe we are just about done in terms of our editing work and look 
>> forward to receiving the staff's final version no later than Monday. Of 
>> course if I am mistaken in my belief I am sure someone will correct me! 
>>  
>> Steve
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Hammock, Statton
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 5:58 PM
>> To: gnso-raa-b@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-raa-b] Comments on Section V and Process B Statement of 
>> Support
>> 
>> Steve,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Attached is a redline showing recommended changes to your initial draft of 
>> Section V of the RAA Initial Draft Report (which also incorporates Avri’s 
>> edit from today).  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> This version also includes a draft Statement of Support for Proposed Process 
>> B.   Also, I’d like to follow-up Tim’s request from yesterday to add SubTeam 
>> B’s attendance record to Annex C.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Questions or comments from the SubTeam are welcome but please also be sure 
>> to copy Tim and Michele as I will be out of the office on Thursday and 
>> Friday and may be unable to respond to comments as quickly as I would like.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Statton
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  Statton Hammock 
>>  Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
>> 
>> <image001.gif>
>> 
>> P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 www.networksolutions.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> <image001.gif><RAA Report Draft - Section V_ SH changes mostly accepted (RAA 
>> Report Draft - Section V_ Clean with SH changes).DOC>
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Holly Raiche
> Executive Director,
> Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU)
> ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Mob: 0412 688 544
> Ph: (02) 9436 2149
> 
> The Internet is For Everyone
> 
> 
> 
>