[Bp_multistakeholder] Paragraph on "Consensus"

[Chip Sharp (chsharp)]

Folks,

On the call on Friday the topic of “consensus” was discussed.  Given the debate on the topic, I suggested that we add a paragraph or so on the term “consensus.”
I agreed to kick off a discussion  and draft some text.

Given this is a best practice forum, it might be a good idea to compile how consensus is used in different venues rather than try to specify a one-size-fits-all version.

Chip



> Avri, I support "rough consensus" for as long as we can avoid getting into *one* definition of consensus or rough consensus for all MSH processes and organizations. We are in a circular-logic situation here otherwise: waiting for consensus about the definition of consensus and not knowing how rough or full it has to be. MSH organizations and mechanisms have to fit their specific purposes in each case and will need different levels of agreement among stakeholders in order to fulfill their functions. Not only that, but different activities within a single organization may necessitate correspondingly different forms of agreement. Thus for policy development they may need rough consensus, for (s)electing offices a vote, for changing statutes a vote with a supermajority. Alejandro Pisanty On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote: >
> > Wikipedia is a useful place to begin. 
> >
> > As long as those commenting on the doc and in the list can arrive at an 
> > acceptable definition of consensus for this pape in the IGF, I think we 
> > will be ok. 
> >
> > avri 
> >
> > On 30-Aug-15 10:27, Richard Hill wrote: 
> > > Dear Avri 
> > > 
> > > Thank you for this. 
> > > 
> > > According to Wikipedia, "rough consensus" refers to a very specific 
> > > method of making decisions, see: 
> > > 
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus
> > > 
> > > Wheras "consensus" refers to a broad variety of processes. Note that 
> > > consensus does not require unanimity: 
> > > 
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
> > > 
> > > Best Richard 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Sent from Samsung Mobile. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -------- Original message -------- 
> > > From: Avri Doria 
> > > Date:30/08/2015 16:03 (GMT+01:00) 
> > > To: bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> > > Cc: intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org
> > > Subject: [Bp_multistakeholder] The Term rough consensus Re: [] was 
> > > Updated synthesis 
> > > 
> > > Hi, 
> > > 
> > > As I mention in my previous note, I think it is also useful to discuss 
> > > some of the issues on the list in their own threads. 
> > > 
> > > On 29-Aug-15 01:10, Richard Hill wrote: 
> > > > 1) I think that it would be better to replace "rough consensus", 
> > > which is a 
> > > > term of art in IETF and refers to a very specific decision-making 
> > > method, 
> > > > with "consensus", which is a more general term. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > When I read the paper before it was posted, I had a moments discomfort 
> > > at the use of the term 'rough consensus' without a definition of what 
> > > this means. But I thought it was ok in this version as a discussion 
> > > point as that is a term that people are beginning to use in a general 
> > way. 
> > > 
> > > The work 'consensus' is problematic because there is no single 
> > > definition, no single process by which groups arrive at what they 
> > > consider 'consensus'. Most do not mean 'full' consensus but some insist 
> > > on that being what it means. 
> > > 
> > > I think that at the moment when we want to say, 'consensus, but not full 
> > > consensus' we use a term like 'rough consensus'. 
> > > 
> > > Also I am not sure that the term is solely subject to definition by the 
> > > IETF. It is getting wider usage and has come to mean something like 
> > > 'consensus, but not full consensus, and not necessarily according to 
> > > IETF strict procedures ...' . 
> > > 
> > > It perhaps we could have some discussion on what the appropriate term 
> > > for this IGF oritented oriented work to use, And probably should 
> > > include something in the document somewhere. 
> > > 
> > > thanks 
> > > 
> > > avri 
> > >