[Bp_multistakeholder] Paragraph on "Consensus"

Mon Oct 5 10:36:53 EDT 2015

Hi,

most likely the best result will recognize that Internet governance takes
place in many venues, mostly specialized by issue, technology, regional
interest, and legal tradition.

The concept of "bindingness" I have introduced earlier is also good
guidance here.

The level and type of consensus, and the way to determine it, necessarily
varies depending on who is deciding what. The IETF has a definition that
others may find trouble grappling with but it works well; not only that, it
has adapted to some changes over the years. Things are very different in
the APWG which is smaller and concentrated on few tasks, and whose members
all have execution capacity for their tasks. And again different for
ICANN's GNSO where polarly opposed interests sit at the table.

"Consensus definitions and procedures commensurate to the decisions each
body or mechanism makes" may be the best we get, and serve us well.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Here is the ISO definition [1]:
>
> “General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition
> to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and
> by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all
> parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. NOTE:
> consensus need not imply unanimity."
>
> In the UN, there is no formal definition, but the practice is to declare
> consensus if there is no formal opposition. That is, the Chair says
> something like "I propose to approve XYZ", and, if nobody formally objects,
> then "XYZ" is approved "by consensus".
>
> However, there are lots of other definitions and practices, see:
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> [1]
> http://www.iso.org/sites/ConsumersStandards/1_standards.html#section1_5
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bp_multistakeholder [mailto:bp_multistakeholder-
> > bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Chip Sharp (chsharp)
> > Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 07:07
> > To: bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> > Subject: [Bp_multistakeholder] Paragraph on "Consensus"
> >
> > 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
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
> > Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum
> > .org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
> Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151005/f699f9a0/attachment.htm>