[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

[Mary Uduma]

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group 
of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old 
version of the document. It is a bit confusing.


I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are 
errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding  any part 
of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. 

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:


1. Purpose:
" Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.

2.  Individual/Group Behavior and Norms:
 Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : 
  
Publiccomments received as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities  should bedulyconsideredand carefullyanalyzed.  

3.  Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read  
''Following
these basic principles, thechair will beresponsiblefor designatingeach ICG position as oneofthe following;'

4. 4b under Recommendation
......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached.......
The  two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.  


Safe trip everyone.

Mary Uduma



 


On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
 


OOOOsh!!!!

Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.

Please ignore my last unfinished mail.

Mary



On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's  version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding  any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. 

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:



On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
 


And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is
 how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)

Jari


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140906/fc10bba8/attachment.html>