[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Mon Sep 8 13:51:51 UTC 2014


And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!



Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Manal Ismail 
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM
To: Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Kavouss Arasteh 
Cc: ICG 
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

 

 

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/bd5104dd/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list