[Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17

Tue Sep 16 08:40:45 UTC 2014

Alissa,
I am at another meeting
I have  read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every
points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss

2014-09-16 0:46 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Kavouss, all,
>
> I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean).
> This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language
> suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove
> the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m
> fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally
> conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular
> question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t
> think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the
> language.
>
> I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough
> guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making
> process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by
> committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for
> it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever,
> I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage
> everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it
> gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work.
>
> My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for
> discussion on Sept 17.
>
> Alissa
>
> On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Martin,
> Dear Joe
> Deal Alissa
> I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d
> Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my
> suggestions but  stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply
> Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions
> I made comments awaiting his reply
> I have not heard from  any of you since two/three  days ago
> Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and
> possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments
> However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft
> WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe
>
>
> 2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>
>>  Mary:
>>
>> I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to
>> get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall
>> that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of
>> language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ...  Perhaps we
>> could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:
>>
>>  Dear All,
>>  I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic
>> and work of the ICG.
>>
>>  I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have
>> done  with a few comments and minor edits.  (See NIRA TECH comments).
>>
>>  The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will
>> always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored
>> or overruled with voting.
>>  Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our
>> work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA,
>> again the expectation of  a broad consensus of the communities will be
>> wanting in the final report.
>>  It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted.
>> I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the
>> 17th if need be,  or any other member can help out here and suggest a
>> language to replace it.
>>
>>  What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .
>>
>> BR
>> Mary Uduma
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_1>
>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6>
>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_2>
>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_3>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff
>> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>   I look forward to your considered reply.
>>
>>  Best
>>
>>  Joe
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>   Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts
>> Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of
>> both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words"
>> could be a solution.
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>>
>>  Kavous:
>>
>> I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be
>> on a case by case basis.  For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted
>> more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it
>> is not a proposal that should be considered.  I think the operational
>> communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is
>> operational, have a different nature of objection...
>>
>> Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
>>
>> All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad
>> consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of
>> concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact
>> the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of
>> the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more
>> operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to
>> submit a proposal that meets the terms of the  NTIA requirements.
>>
>> This would replace the last sentence.
>>
>> Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been
>> beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in
>> context...
>>
>> Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>
>>  Joe,
>>  Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting
>> divergence.
>> In the last sentence of  added bullet
>> Quote
>> *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it
>> seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an
>> operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to
>> submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "*
>> *Unquote*
>> Please kindly clarify the  situation in theexample given by Martin  in
>> which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under
>> consideration
>> a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to
>> submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "
>> b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and
>> protocol parameter )  GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated .
>> In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable
>> that you have maintained the concept of case by case .
>> Awating your kind clarification
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>>
>>  Colleagues:
>>
>> In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a
>> number of the issues through small edits.  for small minority, I have tried
>> blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph.
>> ·         *Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the
>> concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a
>> case-by-case basis.  Factors of determination may include the nature and
>> seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection –
>> whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of
>> communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those
>> concerns/objections.  While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the
>> objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of
>> an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG
>> to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
>>
>>
>>
>> Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do
>> make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement
>> or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we
>> don't do is redraft the proposal),  as well as Martin's question related to
>> why polling...
>>
>> Hope these help.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>>
>>   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
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140916/a53c8db9/attachment.html>