[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Tue Sep 9 15:17:00 UTC 2014

Joe,

you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them.
Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: joseph alhadeff 
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM
To: internal-cg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Wolf:

I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.

Joe

On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:

  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 mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com 
  Cc: Coordination Group mailto: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 
  Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
  To: WUKnoben 
  Cc: Manal Ismail ; Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Coordination Group 
  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 
    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

_______________________________________________
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/20140909/7bd9e828/attachment.html>