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

[patrick.mayer@gmx.de]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Jeff asks for a formal definition of consensus.
> 
> As this question has been discussed, could we formalize it this way:
> 
> -  consensus is when there is no objection. Ex. BC/DNSO broadcasts
>     a document calling for comments withing 10 days otherwise the
>     document is adopted.
> 
> -  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.
> 
> The problem is to decide about what is a veto, ie the seriousness
> of an objection. I would propose a Jury to be attached to the ML:
> their role would be to accept the seriousness of an objection not
> to judge it. Only one acknowledgement by one from the Jury would
> be enough. The Jury is part of the quality/interest of the ML and the
> Members  should be chosen by the owner, the owner could be part
> of them.

I suggest the Director decides wether there is rough consensus or not
based on the principles sketched out above. She/he may well decide wether an
objection is well argued and convincing. Dont bureaucratize the european
Director in this early stage; let the Director be selected and established before
we put some kind of bureaucratic overhead on her/him.

I very much hope that this list gets a little more pluralistic again after
all these exciting times so that there is as much relevance and technical
as well as political and practical experience in it's discussions and
statements as possible. To claim any binding character of discussions for this list
at the moment would be arrogant, IMHO.

Therefore, we don't need an arbitrators panel at this moment. The quality
of the list should suffice to convince the Director, and I guess that's what
we have to work on.

Kind regards,

Patrick


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