[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Sep 7 22:34:20 UTC 2014
>From Kavouss Arasteh
Dear distinguished G11
Dear distinguished ICG Members
I read all 14 messages
It seems we are coming back to square one. That is disappointing
People start to write from the scratch –That is also a pity
I suggest that we do not make any addition to what I sent you on 07
September as it was identical to the initial draft v5 with the exception
that I had deleted reference to quorum and reference quantitative
threshold for majority
I strongly recommend that we just agree to the framework of what we have
agreed on 06 September at G11 meeting and not to expand the scope of the
document e.g. to deal with absentee as some of you added or the nature
of the meeting ,whether it is intended to make the final decision or make
an intermediate decision
We do not need all these details since devil is in the details.
Let us stick to the just case by case principle,
That one possible example that is included was merely one possible example
We do not need to give other examples as we would have ample opportunity to
explore other possible example according to the case on which decision is
required .
Please kindly limit your comments to purely editorial , gramatic correction
and/or structural edits without any change on substance
We have sufficiently discussed the matter for almost 2 months and have had
major problem
reghrads
Kavouss
-
------------------------------
[1] Other best practices that can be considered include the ‘Statement on
Respectful Online Communication’, see
http://www.odr.info/comments.php?id=A1767_0_1_0_C.
<http://www.odr.info/comments.php?id=A1767_0_1_0_C>
------------------------------
[j1]Is this still relevant ?
[W2]To be discussed at the F2F meeting
[MB3]I do not support this deletion
[W4]Agree to MB12. It should turn out from the discussion how serious the
objection is.
[MB5]“Are” is correct in the current formulation. “Is” would require
“objection”
2014-09-07 23:53 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Dear All
> As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to
> expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07
> Ept.
> I request Jari to allow that we limit the scope of the document to ONE
> SINGLE EXAMPLE at this stage due to the fact that we clearly mention that
> we treat the matter on which .after that all efforts are exhausred on a
> CASE BY CASE BASIS.
> I suggest we do not refer to IETF EXAMPLE SINCE OTHER WANTS TO ALSO REFER
> TO THEIR EXAMPLES .
> If you have editorial or structural improvement ,please go ahead but
> kindly limit the content with that example which emanated from the previous
> discussion on which most of you agreed ( even though I disagreed but I join
> the consensus and agree with that single example)
> I wait one or two days and then provide you with summary of all proposals
> on the sole condition that no example of any community be added to the
> single example that already contined in the document
> Regards
> Kavouss ,coordinator of G11
>
>
> 2014-09-07 23:45 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear All
>> As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to
>> expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07
>> Ept.
>> I request Jari
>>
>> 2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>>
>>> This was a good summary.
>>>
>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
>>> Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM
>>> To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko at piuha.net];
>>> Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
>>> CC: ICG [internal-cg at icann.org]
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>>>
>>> Dear All ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion
>>> during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more
>>> than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed
>>> that:
>>>
>>> - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
>>>
>>> - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to
>>> the NTIA
>>>
>>> - A situation where one person can block the whole process
>>> should be avoided
>>>
>>> - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated
>>> qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively
>>> (based on the number of objections)
>>>
>>> - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling
>>> and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to
>>> approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may
>>> then be referred back to the relevant communities)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal
>>> suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
>>>
>>> - Stresses the need for reaching consensus
>>>
>>> - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text
>>> from this part
>>>
>>> - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not
>>> being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a
>>> case by case basis
>>>
>>> - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to
>>> follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF
>>> document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus
>>> process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the
>>> chance to attend ..
>>>
>>> Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present
>>> colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same
>>> page ..
>>>
>>> Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who
>>> were present for the constructive exchange ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> --Manal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM
>>> To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh
>>> Cc: ICG
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140908/bb17f3b5/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list