[NA-Discuss] "Rough Consensus"

[Thompson, Darlene]

LOL!
 
I love both of your wordings.  Yes, I agree that this is the way that NARALO works and I'm quite happy with it.  At the very beginning when we were setting things up I was trepidatious.  Now, I find that we all work together quite smoothly and well.
 
D
 
Darlene A. Thompson
CAP Administrator
Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-5631
Fax:  (867) 975-5610
E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca

________________________________

From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John R. Levine
Sent: Sat 9/25/2010 1:16 PM
To: Evan Leibovitch
Cc: NARALO Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Rough Consensus"



> As always, the preference is for full consensus. Rough consensus (which I
> personally would consider to be less than 10% opposition) is usable but far
> less desirable than unanimity. ...

Rough consensus has worked pretty well in the IETF.

The only groups I know of that work by full consensus are Quaker meetings
and criminal juries.  The Quakers have a tradition that you "stand aside"
if you disagree with the majority, but not so vehemently that you are
willing to block everyone else.

Quakers being Quakers, it works for them, but anywhere else it means that
the group is often held hostage to one stubborn member.  In juries, where
someone's life is often in the balance, that's a good thing.  When we're
deciding how to word yet another comment to ICANN, it's not, so I agree
that rough consensus is appropriate here.

R's,
John
------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/> 
------