[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 11:11:10 UTC 2014


Dear Wolf
Please kindly make your concrete amendments in form of revision marks to
the vclean doc. that I sent you rather than making comments on the margin
Regards
Kavouss

2014-09-09 11:20 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   Dear Heather,
>
> I attach
> - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting
> - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting
> - my amendments/comments to this
>
> I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca
> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM
> *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> *Cc:* Internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
> Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that
> met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the
> latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and
> consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.
>
> Heather
>
>
> *From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
> *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM
> *To*: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc*: Coordination Group <Internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>  All,
>
> let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”)
> was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an
> agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to
> sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11
> coordinator.
>
> As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a
> comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we
> cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.
>
> Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a
> significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the
> process it should be diligently prepared.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
> *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com> ; Jari
> Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>  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/20140909/429cf68a/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list