[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Sun Sep 7 15:46:12 UTC 2014

I seem to have sent my summary of the discussion before reading the
whole thread ..

Was on my return trip with occasional connectivity ..

Will go through the whole thread and attachments and get back to the
list ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 11:00 AM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss, colleagues:

Thanks for your work on this.  

I have attached a draft with a few edits:

Where quorum was removed, I added a paragraph about what happens if
someone is not in the meeting when decisions are made.  We discussed a
mail procedure during the meeting.

In the draft related to consensus mechanisms and recommendations, I
tried to break out the final recommendation decisions as a separate
section.  I'm trying to make it easier to follow for those who have not
been part of the discussions.  I also think its important to have a
chair's report that specifies the status quo of the impasse and what has
been done to try to resolve it.

Hope these help. 

Moving on to second leg of the return trip-

Joe

On 9/7/2014 1:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote

	Dear Mary  

	Thank you for your message

	I sent you what was generally agreed at the meeting of 11.

	I do not  see any reason  why I should do differently.

	It was agreed that 

	1. We no longer refer to quorum

	2. No longer about the criteria to be used for decision making
in terms of 1/2.2/3 or ...

	3. We concentrate that the objective is consensus building for
every thing

	4. in rare cases of disagreement, chair with the assistance of
vice chairs make every and utmost possible effort to find solution

	5. If all efforts to do so are exhausted,  we make all possible
efforts to explore all possible ways and means to reach agreement  take
the case by case approach in a case by case approach 

	6. at the end one possible, among others, is  mentioned to
resolve  a case given .i.e. the resolution of disagreement was left an
open issue to be treated case by case according to the nature of the
problem .

	7 All  pending amendments  which were placed in square bracket
are  thus to be deleted and the text is  editorially  amended (
replacing " personnel " by administrative  and so on  and restructured
as mentioned above 

	That is all 

	Kavouss  

	2014-09-07 2:21 GMT+02:00 Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>:

	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 : 

	Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the
ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and
carefully analyzed.  

	3.  Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read  
	''Following these basic principles, the chair will be
responsible for designating each ICG position as  one of the 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

	_______________________________________________
	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/20140907/2247c156/attachment.html>