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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Avri,

thanks for the explanation and giving the context.

Best Regards,

Rafik



2014-05-07 19:43 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140507/9a2ef320/attachment.html>