[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Alissa Cooper
alissa at cooperw.in
Thu Sep 11 15:39:08 UTC 2014
Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and
suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
* My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document
on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back
to using the document naming convention established by Patrik.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum
ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
* In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should
provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just
the chair/vice-chairs.
* In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of
consensus” means.
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed
to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated
what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same
processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation
example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities
being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the
discussion last week.
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice
chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in
addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are
other possible consensus frameworks?
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Martin,
>Thanks for comments
>May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking
>last comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some
>edits from me.
>See what I sent few mints ago
>.I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept.
>On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it
>is preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09
>Regards
>Kavouss
>
>
>2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:
>
>No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next 24
>hours.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>Dear Wolf
>I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be
>improved
>
>
>It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for
>approval, provided
>that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date
>on which the approval process is scheduled
>.
>
>
>
>
>[Aneffort shouldbemadeto document the
>variance in viewpoint]
>This part is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the
>remaining but replaced
>justified minority views deviating from the recommendation can be
>separately expressed and documented in the report .
>Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
>
>
>Kavouss
>
>
>
>2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh
><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>Dear Wolf
>May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final
>comments notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature?
>Kavouss
>
>
>2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>
>Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
>
>As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under
>“Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or
>at least separate it from the bullet points here.
>
>Best regards
>
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>From:
>Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM
>To:
>WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>Cc:
>joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ;
>Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> ;
>Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
>Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Wolf,
>Thank you for your kind and prompt reply
>I have made following amendments to your draft as follows:
>Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is " is
>replaced by " should be "
>
>Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para,
>The part saying " Consensus here refers to" is replced by" The
>above-mentioned " due to the fact that the paragraph to which this
>bullet referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to "
>Decicion" .
>In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the
>relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by
>case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG
>meeting in Istanbul .
>Last page , in iii,
>As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like
>"serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be
>more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective "
>justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted
> with necessary justifications .In that case the adjective " serious" is
>replaced by" justified " .
>Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content
>mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
>
>Finally Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace"
>example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2
>above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change
>
>I hope you and others agree with these small edits
>Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>
>Dear all,
>
>attached please find my remaining amendments with the following
>explanations regarding some of them:
>
>
>* 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a majority
>vote.”
>Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding voting
>threshold must be clear.
>
>
>
>
>* 4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
>
>
>
>
>* 4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal)
>which I support
>
>
>
>
>* 4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
>
>
>
>
>
> Rationale:
>Opportunity should not be given for all kinds of objection since the
>issue should have been discussed extensively in advance to the
>designation. The remaining objection should then be characterized as «
>serious ».
>I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding
>the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the
> process.
>
>Best regards
>
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From:
>Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM
>To:
>WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>Cc:
>joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ;
>Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> ;
>Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
>Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11
>Dear All ICG Members ,
>I wish to refer to the draft that I sent to you on 08 September, taking
>into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments
>emphasizing that chair and
> vice chairs should identify other possible mechanism apart from the one
> mentioned in that draft
>May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision
>marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the
>covering message.,
>We need to finalize this text as soon as possible
>Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or
>Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building
>with the utmost efforts
>If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus.
>However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs
>together with any other interested party/ties should explore all
>possible ways and means to identify an appropriate
> mechanism for a satisfactory resolution of the matter toward consensus .
>One example and just one example to consider an sissue approved by
>consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according
>to the case under consideration,
>( case by case concept)
>Waiting for your kind reply, I remain.
>Regards
>
>
>
>
>2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh
><kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>Dear Wolf
>I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing
>I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us.
>The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with.
>Evey one pushes for its own.
>I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who
>wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma
>You said quote
>*We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be
>taken into consideration"
>Unqoute
>YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to
>take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict
>with other views
>Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and
>getting.
>I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media
>quoting some thing from me which I never said that .
>Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG.
>Perhaps I was not clear on that.
>Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft
>with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and
>mindful.
>Regards
>Kavouss .
>
>
>
>2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>
>Dear Kavouss,
>
>your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s
>intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG
>member quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing
> you due to any argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and
>arguments which we expect to be taken into consideration.
>The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your
>arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like
>imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached
> email show. Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are
>not helpful for the discussion.
>
>Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific
>submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
>
>Best regards
>
>Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>From:
>Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM
>To:
>WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ;
>joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ;
>Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> ;
>Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
>Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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 <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM
>To:
>internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>
>Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM
>To:
>wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ;
>kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Cc:
>Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Cc: Coordination Group
>mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org <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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
>To:
>WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>Cc:
>Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> ;
>Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com> ;
>Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
>Coordination Group <mailto: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 <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
>Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM
>To:
>Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com> ;
>Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
>Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>Cc:
>ICG <mailto: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 commentsreceived
>as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities
>should be dulyconsideredand
>carefully analyzed.
>
>
>
>
>
>3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
>
>''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for
>designatingeach ICG position
>as oneof 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.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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
><ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept +
>WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON alc.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/9b24a63d/ICGGuidelinesfortheDecisionMakingV1NewRoundstarting08SeptWUK10Sep.docxKA10SepWUK11SeptKA11Sep.CLEANVERSIPONalc.docx>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list