[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP's Team's observation about consensus for the proposal

[Izumi Okutani]

Paul and Alan (with the ICG hat),


This is the summary of observations by the CRISP team on consensus for
our proposal.

CRISP Team, for the interest of time, I am sharing directly with Paul
and Alan but please feel free to add anything else.



1. No furthe comment was confirmed from Richard on our latest reponse
   to Richard's comments

  Richard Hil's comment
  "Again, the RIR legal team can surely work this out, but I still
   think that (1) the community should give them some guidance and (2)
   the community should have the opportunity to comment on
   whatever the RIR legal team comes up with."

   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000283.html

  CRISP Team response:
   - Note that while we didn't incorporate his point about
     jurisdiction, a part of Richard Hill's comment was addressed in
     our proposal.
   i.e., describing that RIRs are to consult its communities before
      fixing the SLA

   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html


2. No support confirmed from other members of the community for RIchard
   Hil's comments - a few people even expressed disagreements.

   See our reponse to icg-forum on support expressed for the CRISP team
   position

3. Several members of the community had explicitly expresed support for
   our proposal.
   　- Seun Ojedeji, Pindar Wong, Wilfried Woeber, Jim Reid,
       John Curran. Maria Hall, Bastiaan Goslings, Bijal Sanghani,
       Mark Elkins, L Sean Kennedy,

   ( Haven't quoted those who expressed general support with addtional
     comments as it may be confusing -but basically addressed them)

   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000355.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000352.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000357.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000354.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000351.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000325.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000306.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000275.html
   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000229.html

4. We consider concensus as general support and not addressing all
   points desite lack of support from others. We do not think consensus
   is restricted to unanimous support.



As a reference, IANA CWG on Names define consensus as below:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14aug14-en.pdf

----
Decision-Making Methodologies:

In developing its Transition Proposal, work plan and any other reports,
the CWG shall seek to act by
consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve
all members (the CWG or subworking
group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position
as having one of the following designations:

? Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by
an absence of objection
? Consensus ? a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree

In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the
submission of minority viewpoint(s) and
these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
----


Regards,
Izumi