[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 18:52:26 UTC 2014
Dear All,
Allow me to share some thoughts with you
First of all,
It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and
unfairly quoted that to be against consensus
That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation of
what I have said or what I am thinking
I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted to opt for voting
That is also another unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or
interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
These are pure allegation and hostile positions
Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a
compromise for any problem
I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation
wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated by
me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating
within the entire ICG
The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is not
consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we
still do not know which are the subjects that we may agree or disagree .In
one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other case
may be option Y to do so.
Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt
with by some operational communities as other operational communities have
had different mechanism to achieve consensus
Consequently,:
1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
2. agree to the case by case concept
3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already included
and not give another example rather take approach of some of you proposing
that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to explore way
and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus or to reach
consensus ,on a case by case
4. agree not to refer to quorum
5.agree not to refer to simple minority
6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make
comments when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of
temperature measuring process to find out the sense and9or direction or
trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting for
the full text that you have proposed.
10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation and
be ready to negotiate and join consensus
TKS
KAVOUSS
2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Dear Wolf
> Dear Joe
> Dear all,
> Please be fair with me.
> I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to
> absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described
> and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options
> than the one I put in the draft
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> *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
> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>]
> *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM
> *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org
> <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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://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/20140909/4a829ea6/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list