[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: ] Fwd: [] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Probably should have done this at the PC level.  Should consider myself
remiss in not having brought this to the PC on my own as opposed to
needing a reminder and an example.

The change offers a footnote explain logical implications of the
statements in the current consensus level guidelines

As for the Council reviewing the voting levels as soon as possible,
while I am not going to object, from the council perspective I think
this should be part of the review and that is soon enough.  Maybe I will
recommend a change to the language on this.

comments?

avri

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus
Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 06:33:15 -0400
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
CC: Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>

Hi,

As I read it, it makes explicit that in addition to having consensus for
something, you can have consensus against something and that this is
different than just the absence of consensus.  I thought it was ever
thus, if just from a logical perspective and the fact that any statement
can be flipped to be a positive statement about not accepting.
But for some of the lawyers in the GNSO, especially as manifest in the
IGO/INGO WG, this was a problem - mostly I think because the chair/staff
were not able to adequately manage the linguistic crisis.

I don't see anything problematic about the language that is being
recommended.  I fact I do not see a change in process here, mostly a
clarification of what logic would say.

But of course I could be wrong and could be missing some sly and
sinister threat.

avri


On 07-May-14 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Avri, Stefania,
> 
> as NCSG rep in SCI, can you please tell me more about this issue? shall
> we pass it to NCSG PC
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Amr Elsadr* <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
> Date: 2014-05-02 19:44 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call -
> GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document
> To: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> 
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> This is the second project coming out of the SCI at this time (attached
> to this email). It is a change to the decision-making levels?
> designations in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. This issue came up at
> the completion of the work being done bye the IGO/INGO WG, where there
> was no decision-making level designation in the guidelines that
> reflected the position of the WG.
> 
> In effect, there was consensus amongst the WG members ?against? some of
> the recommendations being made, while the language in the guidelines
> don?t allow for consensus against recommendations, only consensus for. A
> footnote was added to the decision-making levels to clarify that this is
> possible.
> 
> I?m also ready to vote in favour of this recommendation. Anyone have any
> reservations or discussion points? Remember, the SCI only makes
> recommendations to the GNSO Council after exhaustive discussion and
> unanimous consensus (as per its charter) is achieved.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>> *Subject: **[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working
>> Groups Consensus Levels document*
>> *Date: *April 30, 2014 at 9:10:34 PM GMT+2
>> *To: *"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>"
>> <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <mailto:gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Attached is the latest draft of the proposal for SCI submission to the
>> GNSO Council relating to the language in the GNSO Working Group
>> Guidelines concerning Consensus Levels for Working Groups. 
>>
>> As discussed on the various SCI calls and related emails, the SCI will
>> be proposing that the actual text currently in the Guidelines
>> concerning the Consensus Levels remain unchanged for now; instead, the
>> SCI will recommend that a footnote be added to explain that the Levels
>> can and do include designations of ?consensus against?. In addition,
>> the SCI will also recommend to the Council that the current Consensus
>> Levels text be reviewed as soon as feasible.
>>
>> Please indicate if you, on behalf of your stakeholder
>> groups/constituencies, support or do not support the current draft
>> proposal and language.
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204892>
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>
>> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Language for Consensus Levels - 30 April.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 22705 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140507/028550c4/attachment-0001.docx>