<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>I agree with Martin that while Members are understood to be referred as participants but participants are not understood to be members</div><div>The ICG as announced composed of members and NOT PARTICIPANTS</div>
<div>I THEREFROE REQUEST TO GO BACK TO MEMBERS </div><div>I have other comments which is included in the text</div><div>One important issue is that any Quorum should be super majority ( 2/3) and not simple majority.</div>
<div>For such an important issue ,simple majority is inappropriate as with 49 % of members in disagreement position ,the conclusion is not valid</div><div>I made some other changes ,see attachemnt</div><div>Regards</div><div>
Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-27 10:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Alissa,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your revised text.<br>
<br>
I still have concerns over minority views where a group is seriously impacted by the decision. I've noted before that, for the names part of the equation, the ccTLD or the GNSO community could be in a significant minority. As a result, any recommendation coloured by a footnote objection from that community would hardly be a solution.<br>
<br>
That obviously depends on what we mean by small minority (less than 10% would meet my concerns, but might not meet concerns of others).<br>
<br>
I've made a few changes that try to clarify the meaning of the text. However, I'm bemused by the (partial) change from the term "members" to "participants." I can see that we do not want to non-participants to be dominant in the committee for counting purposes, but we do not spell the consequences out.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Martin<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper<br>
Sent: 27 August 2014 00:03<br>
To: <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
<br>
I made a small change to at the bottom of page 1 in v4 to explain the role of liaisons.<br>
<br>
I haven’t seen any responses to the other changes, explained in my note below. Any outstanding objections to the v4 version?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alissa<br>
<br>
On 8/21/14, 5:13 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Hi all,<br>
><br>
>I have attached and uploaded to Dropbox a v4 that addresses my<br>
>remaining concerns with the consensus document. It is based on the v3<br>
>that was uploaded by Paul earlier this week. Here is a summary of the<br>
>changes and my rationales for them:<br>
><br>
>1) Personnel decisions vs. All other decisions In section 4 I have<br>
>created two subsections, one about personnel decisions and one about<br>
>all other decisions. I have removed the language about “substantive”<br>
>and “non-substantive” because it wasn’t clear to me what it meant and I<br>
>think the actual meaningful distinction is personnel vs.<br>
>non-personnel decisions. That is, for personnel decisions I think<br>
>voting and going with the majority winner is fine; for all other<br>
>decisions I do not think we should vote.<br>
><br>
>As I mentioned in the chat window on the call, I don’t see how we can<br>
>credibly vote on document approvals and other non-personnel matters<br>
>since our numbers in terms of representation of constituencies (which<br>
>themselves can be sliced and diced many different ways) are arbitrary.<br>
><br>
>2) Hold-out problem<br>
>As I stated before I was concerned about the language in the document<br>
>that required all of the operational community representatives (or<br>
>“IANA<br>
>customers”) to be satisfied with every decision, because I believe this<br>
>would allow one group to prevent the full ICG from moving forward. From<br>
>my perspective the important parts are (i) that we spend sufficient<br>
>time trying to accommodate objections, and (ii) that we document<br>
>objections that cannot be accommodated. As long as we put in a serious<br>
>effort at accommodation and objectors can explain in as much detail as<br>
>they like why they object, I don’t think any individual or group should<br>
>have the power to prevent our process from moving forward or to prevent<br>
>us from sending a proposal to NTIA. I have therefore removed the<br>
>language about satisfying all IANA customers.<br>
><br>
>3) Principles<br>
>I thought the second set of principles was clearer than the first, so I<br>
>have kept the second and deleted the first. I do not believe we can put<br>
>a numeric figure on “rough consensus” for the same reason that we<br>
>should not be voting, and the term “rough consensus” does not otherwise<br>
>appear in the document, so I removed the 4/5 requirement as well.<br>
><br>
>4) Methodology<br>
>I have made a number of suggestions to the methodology section. I<br>
>propose as a first step that the chair/co-chairs set a time frame for<br>
>discussion, which can be extended if necessary. I suggest that<br>
>re-evaluation of a published designation only occur in light of serious<br>
>objections to the designation — this should be an exceptional<br>
>circumstance. I removed the notion that the designation would continue<br>
>to be updated until everyone agrees with it because I don’t understand<br>
>how that process would ever terminate. And I added more detail about the nature of polls.<br>
><br>
>5) Appeal<br>
>I removed the language about the ability for any participant to appeal<br>
>a designation — again, I don’t understand how a decision-making process<br>
>would terminate if there can be endless appeals, and if we go down the<br>
>path of documenting objections, I don’t think this is necessary.<br>
><br>
>6) Decision-making venues<br>
>I think we should be able to make decisions on the mailing list<br>
>(especially easy ones :-)) in addition to during meetings, so I added<br>
>some words to that effect.<br>
><br>
>7) Editorial<br>
>I did a bunch of editorial clean-up.<br>
><br>
>Thoughts?<br>
><br>
>Alissa<br>
><br>
><br>
>On 8/20/14, 11:12 AM, "Manal Ismail" <<a href="mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>>Thanks Wolf-Ulrich and apologies for my late reply ..<br>
>>I was already not fully satisfied with the language I suggested and<br>
>>was open for better language ..<br>
>>But in the absence of any, I'm ok with reverting back to the original<br>
>>text ..<br>
>>Thanks again for the heads up ..<br>
>>Kind Regards<br>
>>--Manal<br>
>>-----Original Message-----<br>
>>From: WUKnoben [mailto:<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>]<br>
>>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:43 PM<br>
>>To: Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>><br>
>>Thanks Manal,<br>
>><br>
>>I think we starting a bit mixing between charter related items and<br>
>>those items related to these draft guidelines. The ICG role must<br>
>>definitely be fixed in the charter. What is expressed in the<br>
>>guidelines can per se only work within the limited role of the ICG. Whether it's "decision making"<br>
>>or "conclusion" - this is just wording and needs common understanding.<br>
>>But for me "administrative" decision making looks a bit confusing as<br>
>>it could imply additional ICG guidelines for "other" decision making.<br>
>>So for the latest draft version (v3) coming up I took the liberty, not<br>
>>to accept your amendments in this respect.<br>
>><br>
>>Best regards<br>
>><br>
>>Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>><br>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
>>From: Manal Ismail<br>
>>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:22 PM<br>
>>To: Lynn St.Amour ; <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>><br>
>>I fully agree with Lynn that, within our task of<br>
>>coordinating/assimilating proposals, we hopefully don't have major<br>
>>autonomous decisions to make .. and if they exist, I believe, we<br>
>>should try to revert back to the community, to the extent possible ..<br>
>>Yet, having said that and within our administrative work, we may run<br>
>>into different situations including:<br>
>><br>
>>- All proposals received fit smoothly into one puzzle (theoretical<br>
>>best case<br>
>>scenario)<br>
>>- Gaps/missing information needed to complete the consolidated<br>
>>proposal (request missing information from the relevant<br>
>>community(ies))<br>
>>- Overlaps with different proposals sharing the same view (easy<br>
>>administrative work to come up with a single draft)<br>
>>- Overlaps where the different proposals received suggest<br>
>>different/opposite views (I believe, this where we need to agree how<br>
>>to<br>
>>handle)<br>
>>- Other possible scenarios ??<br>
>><br>
>>Just thinking out loud ..<br>
>><br>
>>Please note that I did some edits, marked in track changes, to<br>
>>ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v2.doc (hope this is the right version)<br>
>>and saved a new version with my initials appended .. I tried to<br>
>>reduce/eliminate the words 'decision making', to the extent possible,<br>
>>in order to avoid any misunderstanding with respect to ICG's limited<br>
>>role of coordination .. I'm open to better language and flexible to<br>
>>revert back to the original text if so agreed ..<br>
>><br>
>>Finally I just want to note that this does not exclude that feedback<br>
>>from the GAC may still be received when GAC discussions are concluded ..<br>
>><br>
>>Kind Regards<br>
>>--Manal<br>
>><br>
>>-----Original Message-----<br>
>>From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>[mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour<br>
>>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:48 AM<br>
>>To: <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>><br>
>>Hi everyone,<br>
>><br>
>>as someone just coming back online, thanks to all who have been so<br>
>>thoughtful (and active).<br>
>><br>
>>I would really like to support Martin's points. Also noting, that if<br>
>>we have substantial and consequential differences with respect to the<br>
>>final proposal - there will not be any agreement (whether we vote or<br>
>>call consensus).<br>
>><br>
>>At the same time, it seems we might be slipping into thinking that we<br>
>>will<br>
>>have major autonomous decisions to make. Given our task is to<br>
>>coordinate/assimilate proposals from 3 different communities (for<br>
>>largely administrative work that is being done very well today), the<br>
>>main work of reaching agreement should be in the communities. If<br>
>>there are substantial differences, they will have to sort them out at the source.<br>
>><br>
>>What am I mis-understanding?<br>
>><br>
>>Best,<br>
>><br>
>>Lynn<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>On Aug 15, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Martin Boyle<br>
>><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>><br>
>>wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Hi Joe,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I am concerned by the return to the idea of supermajorities<br>
>>> overruling significantly affected parties. I do not like recourse<br>
>>> to voting (for reasons that I have already explained), and certainly<br>
>>> not when it can be used to overrule legitimate concerns.<br>
>>><br>
>>> First, I agree with your division between non-substantial (those not<br>
>>> related to the final proposal, but focussed on our ways of working,<br>
>>> charter, even the RFP) and the substantial (related to proposals).<br>
>>><br>
>>> For your hyper-majority proposal (which reminds me of EU formulae<br>
>>>for Council decisions - and that's not an accolade!), what is the<br>
>>>percentage?<br>
>>> I gave some thresholds in my original mail on this issue. What<br>
>>>happens if one of the dissenting organisations were to be the gTLDs?<br>
>>>Or the ccTLDs?<br>
>>> (Interestingly, I don't think such a mess would happen in the case<br>
>>>for numbers or protocols.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> And being voted against won't solve the problem because you won't<br>
>>>have addressed the specific concerns of the beaten party who would<br>
>>>then lobby against the solution showing that we do not have a<br>
>>>consensus proposal.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Essentially, I see a distinct risk of a formulaic approach leading<br>
>>> to a risk of marginalising particular interests simply because they<br>
>>> don't fit the model others might prefer.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I would note that the role of the ICG is to represent the wider<br>
>>>community.<br>
>>> However, we are not elected by them, but appointed by our<br>
>>>communities and accountability to those communities. The chair's<br>
>>>role is to try to pull together consensus, ensuring that serious<br>
>>>concerns are properly considered and that the output is something<br>
>>>that works for all and where there are appropriate safeguards. I<br>
>>>agree that the discussion can't keep going around in loops (hence<br>
>>>the need for us to justify our positions) and sometimes there will<br>
>>>be a final dissenting voice who does need to be given a say in the final document.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Cheers<br>
>>><br>
>>> Martin<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff<br>
>>> Sent: 14 August 2014 20:07<br>
>>> To: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Colleagues:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Perhaps we can consider a different dividing line on consensus. I<br>
>>> would suggest that we have two main buckets, that which is related<br>
>>> to a proposal and that which is related to our operations. For<br>
>>> operations 2/3 of those expressing an opinion is sufficient to<br>
>>> arrive at decisions, but for issues related to proposals we need<br>
>>> more than<br>
>>> 2/3 (other percent?) of all members with no more than 2<br>
>>> participating organizations dissenting. The role of the chair would<br>
>>> thus be constrained by rules regarding when consensus is achieved,<br>
>>> but the chair would have the ability to manage discussion or call<br>
>>> for a formal vote if they believed it would help move us towards consensus.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Slightly less complex and perhaps more action-oriented.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Joe<br>
>>> On 8/14/2014 2:26 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:<br>
>>> Agree. "Consensus" is not equivalent to "Unanimity."<br>
>>><br>
>>> J.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
>>> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 at 13:10<br>
>>> To: ICG List <<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just so I'm clear...<br>
>>><br>
>>> Looking ahead....if we end up with 29 ICG reps in favor of a final<br>
>>> recommendation and one person who unreasonably refuses to<br>
>>> compromise, will that be deemed "consensus" or "no consensus?"<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hypothetically speaking, if one holdout among us can obstruct a<br>
>>> decision that has received support from all other members, and would<br>
>>> prevent delivery of a recommendation....I find that very troubling.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Keith<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of WUKnoben<br>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:47 PM<br>
>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>>> Cc: Coordination Group<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear Kavouss,<br>
>>><br>
>>> you make the same point I expressed by saying that "I'm still<br>
>>>uncertain with "non-substantive" issues which level of substance may<br>
>>>depend on different views". I would welcome you providing other more<br>
>>>useful criteria to decide in which rare cases a "poll" or "voting"<br>
>>>could apply.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As you may have seen in my latest draft I removed the "adjectives"<br>
>>> from consensus. So I would appreciate your written suggestion for an<br>
>>> acceptable text that I could better understand your disagreement<br>
>>> with the present proposal.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>><br>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From:Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:22 PM<br>
>>> To: WUKnoben<br>
>>> Cc:Milton L Mueller ; Martin Boyle ; Coordination Group<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear All,<br>
>>> I am not comfortable to any of these measures.<br>
>>> The more we discuss and analyze ,the more problem is created.<br>
>>> I strongly disagree to make any discrimination among the<br>
>>>contstituent groups in ICG ,WHEN IT IS PROPOSED qUOTE "For<br>
>>>substantive issues, at least none of the "customer groups" (numbers,<br>
>>>protocols, gTLDs or<br>
>>> ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed"<br>
>>> What is considered by someone " substantive" may be considered by<br>
>>>others "<br>
>>> non substantive,<br>
>>> NO ADJECTIVE FOR OPPOSITION .NO ADJECTIVE FOR SCONSENSUS.<br>
>>> If you want instead of making progress to draft another chatter or<br>
>>>convention for decision making ,I disagree with that .<br>
>>> It ios incumbent to the chair and the two vice chairs to make utmost<br>
>>>efforts to build consensus- Pls end this discussion Regards Kavouss<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 2014-08-14 18:32 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>>:<br>
>>> Thanks all for your valuable input.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Milton is right calling for verbal clarity. But differentation is<br>
>>> also needed and there are different approaches to achieve it. And as<br>
>>> I said before the suggestion so far was based on GNSO habit.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I tried to accomodate the discussion and therefore suggest to<br>
>>> differentiate between "recommendation by consensus" (highest level,<br>
>>> 100%) and "recommendation" (all remaining discussion results leading<br>
>>> to a recommendation).<br>
>>><br>
>>> I agree to all basic principles Martin came up with and incorporated<br>
>>>them.<br>
>>> I'm still uncertain with "non-substantive" issues which level of<br>
>>>substance may depend on different views.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I would appreciate further fruitful discussion on the list and we<br>
>>> will hopefully see an end at our call next week.<br>
>>><br>
>>> See my edits attached.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>><br>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From:Milton L Mueller<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:12 PM<br>
>>> To: 'Martin Boyle' ; Coordination Group<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think Martin makes very good points here.<br>
>>> I like his proposed principles, every one of them.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I must confess that I have been wincing at the way the word<br>
>>>"consensus" is (ab)used routinely in these circles. Either it is<br>
>>>truly consensus, and everyone either agrees or agrees not to object,<br>
>>>or it is _something else_.<br>
>>> Will we please stop trying to apply the term "consensus" to<br>
>>>supermajority voting processes? My academic commitment to verbal<br>
>>>clarity and directness is screaming at me that this is wrong.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The IETF concept of "rough" consensus is an informal mechanism that<br>
>>> is suitable for a more homogeneous environment in which adherence to<br>
>>> standards is voluntary anyway, but in an environment with binding<br>
>>> outcomes and political factions, it can and, in the ICANN context,<br>
>>> frequently HAS merely provided a rationalization for ignoring<br>
>>> significant minority points of view.<br>
>>> --MM<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="mailto:From%3Ainternal-cg-bounces@icann.org">From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of Martin Boyle<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:24 PM<br>
>>> To: Coordination Group<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi All,<br>
>>><br>
>>> First thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for his paper. I greatly like the idea<br>
>>>of standards of good behaviour and mutual respect - and I'm pleased<br>
>>>to see that this is already very much the framework for the way that<br>
>>>the ICG works. I'd also note that the analysis of shades of grey in<br>
>>>levels of support is interesting - was it Patrik who first noted the<br>
>>>two extremes (non-substantial and substantial issues) and the level<br>
>>>of consensus that might be needed? I'm just not sure I know how to<br>
>>>use them...<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'd firmly endorse the aim that "the ICG ... reach at least<br>
>>>Consensus on the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to be<br>
>>>forwarded to the NTIA" subject to our continued effort to try to<br>
>>>achieve full/unanimous consensus or (at least) to have addressed<br>
>>>address points of concern.<br>
>>><br>
>>> However, I do not like processes that are supposed to be by<br>
>>> consensus being resolved by voting (cf WCIT): voting leaves winners and losers.<br>
>>> It also means that people get lazy and fail to look for compromise<br>
>>> or common ground or ways to address "reasonable" concerns. That<br>
>>> aversion is not really addressed by supermajorities: even at an 80%<br>
>>> supermajority, all the domain name registries or all the government<br>
>>> representatives or all GNSO members could be overruled. At 85% all<br>
>>> the ccTLD registries, at 90% all the gTLD registries could be ignored.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I do recognise the need for a mechanism that allows us to come to a<br>
>>> final recommendation and I'm afraid that I do not see any magic wand.<br>
>>> But I would suggest a number of basic principles:<br>
>>><br>
>>> · The aim of the discussion should be to try to find a solution<br>
>>> where *no member of the ICG still maintains serious opposition to<br>
>>> the<br>
>>> outcome.* Reasons for objections should be given, allowing the ICG<br>
>>> wherever possible to try to address those concerns.<br>
>>><br>
>>> · *Recourse to any form of voting should be the exception.*<br>
>>>Its<br>
>>> use might be fine for non-substantive issues. For substantive<br>
>>>issues, at least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, protocols,<br>
>>>gTLDs or<br>
>>> ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed.<br>
>>><br>
>>> · Group members who still have problems with the evaluation<br>
>>>should<br>
>>> be invited to *identify possible ways in which the proposal could be<br>
>>>modified to make it acceptable to them.*<br>
>>><br>
>>> · Discussions should continue until *no "IANA customer" group<br>
>>>is<br>
>>> firmly opposed.*<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> One final point: I would be willing to allow anyone who feels that<br>
>>>they have not been heard to put a minority view into the final report.<br>
>>> I'd rather that did not happen, but if the views are strong enough,<br>
>>>it would be best to have then documented in the report than to be<br>
>>>first aired in the discussion that follows the publication of our<br>
>>>final report.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Cheers<br>
>>><br>
>>> Martin<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="mailto:From%3Ainternal-cg-bounces@icann.org">From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>>> Sent: 11 August 2014 20:48<br>
>>> To: Drazek, Keith<br>
>>> Cc: Coordination Group<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear All,<br>
>>> Undoubtedly, it would be super majority either 2/3 or 4/5 .<br>
>>> Kavouss<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 2014-08-11 18:18 GMT+02:00 Drazek, Keith <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>>:<br>
>>> I agree that we will need a clear process for determining consensus<br>
>>> that falls somewhere on the spectrum between humming and requiring a<br>
>>> unanimous vote.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If we get in to discussions of voting, we'll also need to address<br>
>>> the thresholds required to establish consensus. Is it a simple majority?<br>
>>> Super-majority? Unanimous voting is an unhelpful requirement that<br>
>>> would likely obstruct our work and our ability to deliver, so I<br>
>>> believe that should be a non-starter for the ICG. We need to avoid<br>
>>> the possibility of one dissenting vote undermining an otherwise<br>
>>> strongly supported recommendation that represents broad community consensus.<br>
>>><br>
>>> However, if/when there is not full consensus, it will be important<br>
>>> that we have a mechanism for expressing dissenting opinions. The<br>
>>> GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group employs a "minority statement"<br>
>>> mechanism to allow for all views to be expressed when there is<br>
>>> consensus but not unanimity on a particular topic. Perhaps we should<br>
>>> consider a similar mechanism for the ICG.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Keith<br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
>>> On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques<br>
>>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 AM<br>
>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh<br>
>>> Cc: Coordination Group<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hello Colleagues,<br>
>>><br>
>>> From the experience of the past few weeks, unfortunately we can<br>
>>> conclude that the current process is not successful. Rather than<br>
>>> meting out blame or praise, we need to understand why it's not<br>
>>> working. Group dynamics and a bit of sociology can help.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Our Coordination Group is different from what some of us/you have<br>
>>>come to consider as "normal". The technical bodies (IETF, IAB) have<br>
>>>developed an efficient process where "rough consensus" is understood<br>
>>>and accepted. But other components of the ICG have different habits,<br>
>>>and also a different accountability mechanism: however attractive<br>
>>>"rough" may be, it is insufficient. For example, the GAC has its own<br>
>>>rules (a joint position can only be reached by unanimity), and the<br>
>>>ALAC routinely conducts all its votes on a full-membership basis<br>
>>>(each member has to say ay, nay, abstain, or be noted down as not<br>
>>>having cast a vote).<br>
>>><br>
>>> So the challenge is this: is the "rough consensus" really adapted to<br>
>>> all the needs of our group? With the experience gained collectively<br>
>>> in London, and especially since then, I would recommend a dual approach:<br>
>>><br>
>>> A/ MATTERS REQUIRING ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE (typically, to be decided<br>
>>> as soon as possible, with the exception of our Transition plan)<br>
>>> - Chair structure and membership,<br>
>>> - Charter of the ICG,<br>
>>> - choice of Secretariat (ICANN or outside of ICANN, or a mixture<br>
>>> of both),<br>
>>> - choice of near-final drafts and approval of final draft of our<br>
>>> Transition plan, before presentation to the NTIA.<br>
>>><br>
>>> B/ MATTERS WHERE OTHER FORMS OF DECISION-MAKING ARE ACCEPTABLE<br>
>>> - Appraisal of specific community input, as a contribution to the<br>
>>> ICG's recommended plan (e.g. ALAC should appraise input from its own<br>
>>> community before submitting it to the whole ICG),<br>
>>> - external relations and communications of the ICG (once the<br>
>>> Chair structure has been chosen and populated, it may wish to ask<br>
>>> Chair, or another of its members, to be the point of contact),<br>
>>> - administrative & logistic matters, in conjunction with the<br>
>>> chosen Secretariat (here too, delegation would be possible).<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'm prepared to provide a more detailed proposal for the above items.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards,<br>
>>> Jean-Jacques.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ----- Mail original -----<br>
>>> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> À: "Patrik Fältström" <<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">paf@frobbit.se</a>><br>
>>> Cc: "Coordination Group" <<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> Envoyé: Lundi 11 Août 2014 10:40:08<br>
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear Wolf<br>
>>> Thank you very much for reply<br>
>>> My point is that if one or more ICG Mmember(s) is7are againszt the<br>
>>> ruling of the Chir ,They could raise their issue and the matter must<br>
>>> be settled by simple explanation or if not resolved by voting . I.E.<br>
>>> CHAIR DOES NOT HAVE DECISION MAKING POWER ON HE OR HIS OWN WISHES<br>
>>> RATHER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VIEWS OF MEMBERS Regards KAVOUSS Regards<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 2014-08-11 8:33 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström < <a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">paf@frobbit.se</a> > :<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben < <a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> > The chair's designation that consensus is reached is not her/his<br>
>>> > own decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of<br>
>>> > course this designation can be challenged by members. And this is<br>
>>> > what triggers your question about "If several participants in the<br>
>>> > ICG disagree with the designation given ...". I'm open to any<br>
>>> > helpful suggestion on how we could procede in such a case.<br>
>>> > In the end consensus - as defined - has to be achieved.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly agree with.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We must deliver.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This implies we must be able to reach consensus.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The last couple of weeks discussions on various topics makes me a<br>
>>>bit pessimistic on the ability for us to reach consensus, but I am<br>
>>>optimistic, always optimistic, on peoples ability and interest in<br>
>>>actually deliver.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Remember that the chair is calling on the consensus question, not<br>
>>> the substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a<br>
>>> minimum and process issues.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Patrik<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>><br>
>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
>><br>
>>_______________________________________________<br>
>>Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Internal-cg mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>