Hi all,

As introduced in the meeting, here is the definition for consensus that I've 
compiled for the PDP update in LACNIC last May.

2. Definition of ‘Consensus’
Achieving ‘consensus’ does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, 
nor that the number of ‘yes's’, ‘no's’ and ‘abstentions’ – or even participants 
– are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not only by its 
author(s) but also by other members of the community, regardless of their 
number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical 
objections have been resolved.

In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the community in 
favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the proposal basing their 
objections on technical reasons as opposed to ‘subjective’ reasons. In other 
words, low participation or participants who disagree for reasons that are not 
openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus.

Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their nature 
and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a member of 
the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive many ‘emails’ 
(virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might consider that the 
opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the debate; 
in this case, the chairs would ignore those expressions of support against the 
proposal.

For information purposes, the definition of ‘consensus’ used by the RIRs and 
the IETF is actually that of ‘rough consensus’, which allows better clarifying 
the goal in this context, given that ‘consensus’ (Latin for agreement) might be 
interpreted as ‘agreed by all’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282, 
explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but 
not necessarily accommodated.”

Regards,
Jordi
 
 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to