[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Thu Sep 11 20:48:08 UTC 2014


Hi Kavouss,

Thanks, I think I now understand what people had in mind as far as the
“other frameworks.” The document calls on the chair and vice-chairs to do a
lot of things, so I was trying to make sure that I understand what those
things are.

I agree with the idea of using a case-by-case approach if necessary and none
of my edits were intended to change that, nor do I believe that they do
change that.

Thanks,
Alissa

On 9/11/14, 2:36 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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%20document
> s%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 
>    
> 
> 2014-09-11 17:39 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>> 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
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documen
>> ts%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:From%3Ainternal-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 
>>> <http://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 
>>> <http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg> 
>> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/fb1e5a96/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list