[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Sep 12 13:20:22 UTC 2014


Martin
Thank you,
You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with
which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL
YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY  ).
However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what is
small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I have
serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that it
would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to penalize
that group
PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SMALL
MINORITY
how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities
that was described in one output message ?
Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated
Quote

   -

   "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1]
   <file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msocom_1>
    relate to the handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)   AND
   NOT DECISIONS TO APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"
   -

   Unquote
   -

   Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions addressed in
   this section"
   -

   WHAT  ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS?
   ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA?
   -

   if  NOT WHAT THEY ARE?
   -

   Then please advise how and what approach will be used for cases
   DECISIONS TO  be made  for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE
PROPOSAL RELATED"?

   -

   What are those cases
   -

   I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous
   -

   Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly reply to
   my question
   -

   Regards
   -

   Kavouss

------------------------------

 [AC1]
<file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_1>Both
types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only focusing on Section
4(b) decisions.

 [AC2]
<file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_2>I
believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we will not
be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say that we
will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because we will
not be handling them at all.

 [MB3]
<file:///C:/Users/guestlib/Downloads/ICG%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Decision%20Making%20V1%20New%20Roundstarting%2008%20Sept%20+%20WUK%2010%20Sep%20docxKA10%20Sep%20WUK%2011%20SeptKA%2011Sep%20CLEAN%20VERSIPON%20alc%20+%20mb%20+%20alc%20+%20mb.docx#_msoanchor_3>Fully
agree
  r b

2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  Thank you Kavouss.  As requested, I have made specific drafting
> suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a
> suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly
> different line from him).  I have left the comments in place as I think it
> is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
>
>
>
> I have not tried to change the filename:  as Alissa pointed out in her
> mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34
> *To:* Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140912/1eef625e/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list