[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Sep 8 14:42:55 UTC 2014


Dear All,
I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your
comments
I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept.
Please consider this clean version and
1 make any editorial /language improvement
2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft.
There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel
comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable .
Kavouss



2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ccd60423/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 56601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140908/ccd60423/ICGGuidelinesfortheDecisionMakingV1NewRoundstarting08Sept.docx>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list