[Bp_multistakeholder] Paragraph on "Consensus"

Mon Oct 5 11:27:56 EDT 2015

I like Richard's definition. Moreover, I used to work in conflict
resolution and shared quite a few resources on consensus building with Chip
in a private mail. If anyone is interested in seeing those resources, feel
free to e-mail me.

-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
#TCKchat <http://www.bateconsult.com/category/tck-chat/> co-host, 1st
session
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https:/www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> I agree with what Alejandro says below.
>
> Best Richard
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Alejandro Pisanty
> Date:05/10/2015 16:36 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Richard Hill
> Cc: "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" , bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [Bp_multistakeholder] Paragraph on "Consensus"
>
> 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
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
> Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151005/2453a3ab/attachment.htm>