Page History

10:41:11 From Claudia Ruiz : Welcome to the ALS Mobilization Working Party Call
10:59:55 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Hello everyone!
11:00:04 From Roberto : Hi!
11:00:19 From Jacqueline Morris : HI Roberto
11:00:20 From David Mackey : Hi All
11:00:38 From Ali AlMeshal : hello all
11:04:44 From Nadira AL Araj : Oh Good to know
11:05:14 From Peters Omoragbon : High everyone. I am here 
11:06:22 From David Mackey : This is good information. Thanks Alan.
11:06:42 From Sarah Kiden : Good to know, Alan. I had pointed out one of the items. This explanation is useful
11:06:49 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Thank you, great to know
11:07:09 From Nadira AL Araj : How to access to this document? to read later
11:07:33 From Jacqueline Morris : Links are in the agenda on the wiki
11:07:41 From Claudia Ruiz : Documents are linked to the agenda
11:07:43 From David Mackey : All IETF RFCs are available from a google search
11:07:59 From Claudia Ruiz : https://community.icann.org/x/0gBcC
11:08:09 From Nadira AL Araj : Thanks Claudia
11:09:23 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Thank you Claudia!
11:09:29 From Claudia Ruiz : You’re welcome
11:10:29 From Maureen Hilyard : It is very helpful to have these clarifications of terms
11:10:43 From Judith Hellerstein : yes. it is helpful
11:11:12 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : (There could also be another way, the rough rule of thumb could be "understood" to imply 80% agreement, but ALAC consensus could be truly "rough consensus"; One way of defining rough consensus, if it pleases ALAC, would be to define it as "usually 80%, but might vary upward or downward as a 'desirable level of agreement', but in any case declared by the Chair / EC as attainment of deemed / rough consensus on the issue placed on the table.
11:13:33 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : This level of flexibility may be required as in some cases the 80% may not be practical, and in some extraordinary situations, 80% may not suffice, so it might require the Chair to declare "rough consensus" as deemed to have been achieved on the issue placed on table and debated. By the Chair's discretion, it could be in cases where there is a 79% agreement or 81% agreement, or with a more flexible tolerant
11:13:58 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : "rough consensus" is what enables progress in Internet Policy
11:14:19 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : The Chair is seated as a Trusted leader.
11:14:42 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : Certain degree of discretion could be exercised by the ALAC Chair
11:16:16 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : What sets the multi-stakeholder process apart is the way its processes are distinguished from the relatively rigid parliamentary / multilateral / governmental processes
11:17:05 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : "rough consensus" is one of the aspects that is unique to the MS process, and has demonstrably worked
11:17:46 From David Mackey : “On Consensus and Humming in the IETF”, RFC 7282
11:17:49 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : This needs to be the central, core aspect of the multistakeholder process, and ALAC could further this way of thinking
11:18:04 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : Yes, the IETF humming is an excellent example
11:18:25 From David Mackey : sure, sounds good
11:19:37 From Nadira AL Araj : It would be good the ALAC to write its rules on consensus
11:19:51 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : In a peculiar sense, majority votes can be gamed, but rough consensus is visible and transparent, and never known to be gamed on the floor...
11:20:17 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : +1 @Nadira
11:20:41 From Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong : agree with Nadira
11:20:49 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : @Nadira Even the "rule book" could say that the rule is (+ve ly) fuzzy.
11:20:50 From Sarah Kiden : Agree, Nadira
11:21:31 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : There are two elements that can go into the preamble:
11:21:47 From David Mackey : +1 @Nadira & +1 @Sivasubramanian
11:22:28 From David Mackey : Yes, IETF should be a baseline for the consensus norms used in ICANN and At-Large
11:22:46 From Jacqueline Morris : +1 Siva. The idea of rough consensus and the role of the Chair as you wrote it here is what I have seen in practice in IG and other areas and it works well.
11:22:47 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : 1) rough consensus is a way of creating a 'consensus' process that steers away from the deadlocks characteristic of the democratic processes.
11:22:51 From Judith Hellerstein : yes i agree. now let’s move on
11:23:08 From David Mackey : Chairs have an important role in the consensus process
11:23:28 From Roberto : @Siva what deadlock are you referring to?
11:23:33 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : 2) rough consensus implies trust among stakeholders, and trust in the discretion of the elected / nominated leader
11:25:01 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : @Siva, guess trust is not a problem in the case of open election
11:25:22 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : @ roberto deadlocks as in situations where the process says 66% majority is needed, but the house happens to be divided exactly in the middle; or in situations where 100% agreement or 0% objections is needed which is seldom achieved. In these situations there is what I call "deadlock", apologies if this is by any chance a term that is not politically correct
11:25:50 From Jacqueline Morris : @Peters Consensus and rough consensus are both extensively used in the democratic process, in my experience.
11:25:54 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : @Natalia When is an open election truly open?
11:26:28 From David Mackey : Consensus is more than a simple majority
11:26:38 From Roberto : @Siva - in this case, I do not see how the consensus rule can break the deadlock, you still have 50-50
11:26:46 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : Philosophically, any open process is, as someone once told me, can be a "open debates on decisions agreed upon in private"
11:28:00 From David Mackey : Consensus is a culture of norms, trust and acceptance of different perspectives.
11:28:16 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : IN many cases of course in Policy and in Cross Community WG's one adopts and states what the definition or method of consensus is, IN GNSO it is *always* ruled by the GNSO Policy Guidelines, in many Cross Community Working Groups those same GNSO definitions or stated modifications of them have also been adopted. The problem with changing established mechanisms for use in parts of ICANN (such as in this narrow focussed work group) to something unfamiliar to generally used or used in ICANN is the confusion that abounds, and the time taken in constantly re-establishing issues or explaining issues again to a few or sector of participants... (such as when GAC Members join GNSO PDPs and are unfamiliar with other than their unique GAC method of consensus establishment)
11:28:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : However in ALAC and At-Large the overarching expectation is that we will work by Consensus!!!
11:29:03 From Jacqueline Morris : consensus is consistent with the just treatment of others, and goes hand in hand with democracy.
11:29:18 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : @Roberto, in the hypothetical situation where even anything about 50% is infeasible, for a length of delay that is more than tolerable, that is where the suggestion of a flexible 80% helps. The suggestion is to acknowledge the wisdom of the Chair (and the Chair's Advisory process) to determine and 'declare' rough consensus as achieved. In such an environment, there would be a convention by the differing parties to bow to the decision taken
11:29:22 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : and respect it.
11:29:24 From David Mackey : +1 Jacqueline
11:31:07 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : @Siva the result of any election is still a CREDIT of trust. The working process after shows whether the trust was justified or there was a mistake. But trust is in the core
11:31:45 From Roberto : @Siva - if the assembly is split, it is split in any case, I don’t buy that consensus is able to overcome deadlocks. The Vertical Integration WG, the WHoIS issue, and more, are the proof that working with consensus does not always guarantee breaking deadlocks. This said, I prefer that, but it is a completely different story
11:31:46 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : +1 @Jacqueline too
11:34:02 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : @ Cheryl , Yes, but further innovations, built around trust, by ALAC could be of help in making the multistakeholder process for more effective. This is something that only ALAC could do, as traditionally the other stakeholders are used to either the top-down corporate model of decisions, or the 'democratic' model of intergovernment processes, hence, these aspects of the core processes as the ones pertaining to consensus could only originate from ALAC
11:34:44 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : Other stakeholder would adapt to these processes after observing and participating in the ALAC processes.
11:35:52 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : because they are relatively steeped in their own historical processes, it requires a shift, a major shift in their belief systems, which are deeply rooted, and learned over centuries.
11:37:13 From David Mackey : Can someone from staff please add a link to the updated doc version to the chat please? The one on the wiki page seems to be out of date.
11:37:26 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWe_tOGE1ddl2B3hOAcJ8JG9ODjpD6zMp_d2_ikc4nc/edit#
11:37:57 From Claudia Ruiz : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWe_tOGE1ddl2B3hOAcJ8JG9ODjpD6zMp_d2_ikc4nc/edit#heading=h.88io3o3gv1bn
11:38:04 From Claudia Ruiz : Thank you @Natalia
11:38:33 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : You are welcome!
11:39:21 From David Mackey : The shared links seem to be the same link I had from the wiki, but they don’t seem to match what I looking at on Zoom
11:39:50 From David Mackey : maybe I need to switch the comments on or something
11:39:55 From Jacqueline Morris : HI - I cannot see comments or edits in the actual google doc. Apparently I have to request edit access?
11:40:26 From Sarah Kiden : Perhaps switch the comments on @David. I clicked the same link from the wiki and I see the same document
11:40:28 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : 8 (d) return it to the RALO with comments and suggestions for a reexamination of the RALO's evaluation
11:40:41 From Nadira AL Araj : <Question> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article12 (F) Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its rules of procedure, save always that any changes made to the rules of procedure in respect of an At-Large Structure applications shall be subject to review by the RALOs and by the Board.
11:40:57 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : ie.. more like 8 (c) renaming (c) to (d)
11:41:06 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : The link shared does not allow comments nor edits
11:41:12 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : So mentioning it here
11:42:56 From Nadira AL Araj : (G) Decisions as to whether to accredit, not to accredit, or disaccredit an At-Large Structure shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board.
11:44:24 From Claudia Ruiz : @Jacqueline - access granted
11:44:56 From David Mackey : @Claudia can I have access to please? :-)
11:45:02 From David Mackey : too
11:45:25 From Jacqueline Morris : Thanks, Claudia
11:47:06 From Claudia Ruiz : @David- can you please send a request
11:47:53 From David Mackey : @Claudia, I thought I did, but I just resent another request.
11:49:27 From Claudia Ruiz : @David- thank you, access granted
11:50:10 From David Mackey : @Claudia, got it, great! Thank you. :-)
11:50:11 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : here the judgement is sort of sweetened, it is a "decision" when alac decides to return the application, it goes away from ALAC, but to the RALO it is not a "rejection"
11:50:17 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : I stop here
11:51:07 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : And, quite disconnected from the point above, apologies, I need to step out early.
11:51:10 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : Thank you.
11:53:53 From Sarah Kiden : Perhaps the pause during ICANN meetings should also be noted and captured
11:55:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : makes sense Sarah
11:55:43 From Roberto : Unfortunately there are many other commitments other than ICANN meetings that can bring delays - I am not sure that we have to explicitly count that in. Maybe have an additional week added to the process in general
11:57:29 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Correct Alan and a "good practice" followed in most ICANN WG's since then
11:58:39 From Ali AlMeshal : bye all
11:58:41 From Sarah Kiden : Thank you!
11:58:43 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye for now Thanks
11:58:45 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : thank you Alan and all!
11:58:46 From David Mackey : Thanks Alan and everyone. Bye!
11:58:46 From Bastiaan Goslings : thanks all
11:58:47 From Maureen Hilyard : Thanks Alan and all.. great meeting
11:58:48 From Amrita Choudhury : Thank you
11:58:51 From Herb Waye : Take care all
11:58:51 From Jacqueline Morris : THanks. Bye