[At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS

[Alan Greenberg]

At 18/02/2009 07:21 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most 
>>people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process 
>>of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and 
>>civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of 
>>people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement.
>If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a 
>decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, 
>that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" 
>decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
>
>- Evan

As Karl points out, a Board may want to reach consensus, but 
ultimately, each Director has an obligation to vote their own 
conscience. Whether they always do or not may be another matter. The 
term "consensus" is sometime used to imply 100% agreement, and other 
times to imply general but not unanimous agreement. In most matters, 
ICANN uses the latter definition.

In the specific case of a GNSO "Consensus Policy", the rules of the 
current GNSO say that 66% of the votes must approve (there is a 
weaker form, but that is not as binding on the Board). since the 
largest Constituency only had 22.2% of the votes, a policy can be 
classes as a GNSO Consensus policy without approval of all 
Constituencies. In creating the rules for the reformulated GNSO, some 
us fought very hard (and won) to ensure that this was maintained. We 
felt it was VERY important to be able to adopt a policy even if one 
group (the one that might be adversely affected by it) was kicking 
and screaming all the way.

The registrar constituency did not agree with the Consensus Policy to 
limit the use of the AGP, but it passed, since more than 66% of the 
votes were for it. The Board approved the motion unanimously (as far 
as I can tell from the minutes). Whether that means all directors 
actually agreed with the policy, or none felt that it was 
sufficiently dangerous that the Board should overrule the GNSO, I cannot say.

Alan