[Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.

[Joseph Alhadeff]

Colleagues we seem to be on course to return to square one.  If we are to move to something beyond rough consensus or for decision making as a whole we should consider how to interpret silence within a time frame for comment.

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Received: Monday, 04 Aug 2014, 4:22PM
To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
CC: Coordination Group [internal-cg at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.

Dear All,
I do not agree with the concept of " rough consensus " due to the fact that
according to the international customary law ,there is no adjective for
consensus.
Consensus means merely consensus without soft or rough adjective
Pls do not push us to follow the course of action or approach being used by
IETF
We are not IETF .We are coordination group on Transition of IANA function
from NTIA to so-called multistakegholder community the constituent of which
yet require clarification .
We need to reach consensus not rough and not soft
Regards
K.ARASTEH


2014-08-04 11:36 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

>  I agree on the need for process and believe that looking to established
> rules is useful.  This should be our first decision.  I also wanted to
> clarify one point as to my recollection of the consensus in London; it was
> solely for 3 co-chairs to be selected by a volunteer process.  Those were
> the only questions that were hummed.  Anything else is a new proposal which
> gets us back to a need for process.
>
> Best-
>
> Joe
>
> On 8/4/2014 3:38 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take very
> seriously.
>
> It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of membership
> and chair structure - make here the general point of how CIG members in
> future can trust each other. This question - as usual in diverse groups -
> is strongly related to the commonly understood and agreed process in
> finding decisions.
>
> Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed to
> follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use different
> means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the email list etc.
> If we don't find a better way it will lead us deadlocked in almost every
> question to be decided.
>
> Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to clearly
> define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an extract of the
> GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have similar approaches
> with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this together and come up
> with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul meeting. I'd be happy to
> be part of a small prep team.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I
> would like to offer a few remarks.
>
>
> FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE.
>
> For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning
> stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that
> technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message
> about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for
> the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as
> the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before
> transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA
> statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not
> diminish the value of the US proposal.
>
> To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes
> displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions
> of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show
> little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies.
>
> When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was
> heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America),
> one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business
> interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members
> of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not
> relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely
> technical".
>
> To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you
> Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges
> facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the
> CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not
> the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest
> reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that
> the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension.
>
>
> SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT
> WITHOUT RISK.
>
> In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in
> favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did
> not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention
> this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the
> problems facing us now.
>
> The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now.
> But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some
> wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in
> the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens,
> already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure
> and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of
> that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests
> (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in
> the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or
> capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts
> of interest, real or perceived.
>
> Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by
> the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their
> final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which
> this was developed.
>
> It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we
> operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow
> agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our
> own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership
> structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the
> CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global
> stakeholder community.
>
>
> THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS.
>
> Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to
> analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward:
>
> - Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is.
>
> - Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC,
> having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the
> widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple
> and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the
> results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations)
> will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and
> by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very
> short.
>
> - Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into
> account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the
> operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global
> Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a
> durable success.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>