[ICANN-EU] Re: Installing the New Charter.

[patrick.mayer@gmx.de]

Somebody keeps on asking for a definition on "rough consensus". The point
is, that rough consensus cannot be quantified or otherwise defined. That's
why it is called "rough": it is not exactly consensus, but just some kind of
agreement to go ahead in a certain direction. In fact, "rough consensus" is
an objection in itself; you either have consensus or not, but there is
logically no such thing as "rough" consensus (or "a little pregnant").

Anyway, "rough consensus" is not only a motto (IETF) but a working
hypothesis on how to proceed in difficult technical (and other) matters, if I see
it right. But it cannot be defined.

It's core is that enough nodes in a neural net work towards the same
direction/goal to keep the whole moving. That means, if enough ISPs accept a new
standard by way of "rough consensus" and implement the thereby developed
"running code", the application based hereon will work on the Internet. If just
a few do, the "rough consensus" is too weak and the application doesn't
work (like name.space).

For icann-europe that means you cannot have anybody to decide on wether
the consensus is there or wether there is at least rough consensus. The
Director must decide at her/his discretion, and that's it. If she/he is wrong,
ICANN won't work in the medium to long run.

Not more, not less.

Kind regards,

Patrick Mayer

> > Jeff asks for a formal definition of consensus.
 
>   No I ask for a definition of "Rough Consensus".  I also ask
> for a determination as to how "Rough Consensus" is reached or
> decided/determined.  What method, in other words?

[...]

> > -  rough consensus is when there are objections, but no veto. When
> >     there is a rough consensus it is possible to keep working toward a
> >     consensus.
> 
>   Ok good.  But how it "Rough Consensus" determined?  What method?

-- 
Rechtsanwalt Dr. Patrick Mayer   patrick.mayer@gmx.de
Informationen zum Medienrecht: http://www.artikel5.de