[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Thu Sep 11 20:33:57 UTC 2014

Martin

I agree with most of the things that you said.

However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and
move all of your comments to the covering.

It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer
to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes
that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be
given the opportunity to comment.

What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only
three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be
met but we want to give opportunity to others

I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.

Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark
approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin

SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish

However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one
focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and
approach used by a particular community

We need to be general and cover every body's case

Regards

Kavouss

2014-09-11 22:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  Thanks Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also
> drafting.
>
>
>
> I too would like to preface my remarks with some general points.
>
>
>
> First:  that a little group got together and agreed a text in the margins
> of the meeting is a good way to work.  However, the final text has to be
> approved by the committee.  I was excluded from the discussion in Istanbul
> (as was Alissa), even though I think I had made it reasonably clear that I
> have a strong interest in the text.  It is surely better to have concerns
> ironed out now than to be raised at the next conference call?
>
>
>
> Second, I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to understand.
> I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it easier to understand
> because Kavouss has made it clear he does not want us to just do drafting
> changes.  However, in my opinion, a “simple English” draft would be useful
> and would make our life easier in months to come.
>
>
>
> Third:  on your comments on Alissa’s points, I would note:
>
>
>
> 3. The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has been
> followed by most people.  It provides a way for us all to follow the train
> of events.
>
>
>
> 4.  I actually think that views should be provided to the committee, not
> just to the chairs/vice chairs.  I think that we had an agreement about
> working openly, so I shared Alissa’s concern about private exchanges with
> the committee’s officers.
>
>
>
> 5.  I also do not understand what “any other mechanisms of consensus”
> means.  I am none the wiser after the explanation.  I thought it might be a
> way of saying that there would be another attempt to find consensus, but
> that doesn’t really fit the context.
>
>
>
> 6.  Running a consensus process again might make sense if there is time.
> But in the text here, where we are at the point of running out of time, it
> does not make sense.  A more pragmatic approach – will we have an
> acceptable proposal – seems to be more important.
>
>
>
> 7.  And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear to be
> dismissing without discussion.  I actually believe that the wording that I
> proposed is needed:   if we overrule an operational community on a point
> that directly affects them, then you do not have a solution, no matter how
> wonderful our decision-making process.  Proposals that might undermine the
> policy authority for ccTLDs (for example, by requiring them to adopt gTLD
> policies) would be totally unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope
> also to the government representatives, given the Tunis Agenda).
>
>
>
> I have seen Joe’s comments that “we cannot ignore the non operational
> communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant to
> consensus”:  I do not think it is.  My concern is more about a forced
> solution through a vote that just does not fit with the organisations that
> need to implement the outcomes.  My guess is that NTIA would simply send
> the copy back and tell us to do it again.
>
>
>
> 8. I also failed to understand “consensus frameworks,” but feel a little
> more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case approach to the particular
> issue and who is affected and – in the end – will the final proposal
> actually be a solution which will generally be accepted when we put it
> forward at the end of our work.
>
>
>
> General comments:  while a lot of progress in understanding has been made
> by the small group, we all need to understand what we are trying to do and
> agree to it.  I think both Alissa and I are struggling to develop that
> understanding.
>
>
>
> I attach a marked-up version of Alissa’s amendments.  I look forward to a
> further round of discussions that try to get us to a final version.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11 September 2014 19:37
> *To:* Alissa Cooper
> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
> Alissa,
>
> I do not understand what we are doing here.
>
> If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the
> drafting process.
>
> Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly
> understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree of
> mutual understanding
>
> Allow me to reply to your comments one by one
>
>
>
> 1.
>
> Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and
> suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
>
>
>
>
>
> No Comments from KA
>
>
>
>  2.
>
>  * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document
> on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
>
>
>
> Comments from KA ,yes
>
>
>
> 3
>
> .* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back
> tComments from KA ,yes
> o using the document naming convention established by Patrik.
> <
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum
> ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>
> >
>
>
>
> Comments from KA
>
>
>
> That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views from
> one ICG.However, it is not important
>
>
>
>  Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
>
> 4
>
> * 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.
>
>
>
> Comments from KA
>
>
>
> I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs  should
> certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair
> to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it brings more
> clarity to the text
>
>
>  5
>
> * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of
> consensus” means.
>
>
>
> Comments from KA
>
>
>
> Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did not
> want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one possible
> example .However, some other people wished to include other examples
>
> Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE
> BY CASE BASIS
>
> The term " case by case basis" was the heart  of the whole issue that you
> have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS
> OVERRULES  BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that.
>
> In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach, and
> on the other hand, not to overload the document with several examples, the
> term  “any other mechanisms "  as appropriate and according to the case was
> included .
>
>
>
> 6
>  * 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.
>
>
> Comments from KA
>
>
>
> Your  understanding is right
>
> First  it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient
> discussed
>
>
>
> In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways and
> means other than those previously considered at the first round to acheive
> consensus
>
>
>
> 7
>  * 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.
>
>
>
> Comments from KA
>
>
>
> The  issue is that  people tries to over  emphasize should be pointed to
> each group as , as a general rule the interests of  all groups represented
> in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit every thing to
> three operational communities from the outset whereas that approach should
> not be taken as general rules.
>
> Can you please identify  the link 7association of each and evry grouip
> participating in ICG to the three  operational communities that you
> pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as such
> .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a particular
> operational or oerating community
>
>
>
>
>
> 8
>
>
>  * 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?
>
>
>
> Comments from KA
>
> Part of the language is suggested by Wolf
>
> However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of efforts
> were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with
> intrested parties )are advised or should further explore other ways and
> means to identify other options 7 alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach
> ,if the issue relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it was
> agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism / alternative is referred
> to at this point of time rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH
>
> I hope I have replied to your various comments
>
>
>
> General comment from KA
>
> Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot of
> efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that understanding
> needs to be retained
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/df220470/attachment.html>