<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Alissa,</div><div>I have sent Rev 2 of the doc. relating consensus building.</div><div>Have you considered that </div><div>Pls kindly reply</div><div>KAVOUSS <br><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Kavouss Arasteh</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: 2014-08-27 19:59 GMT+02:00<br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>To: Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>><br><br><br>Dear Alissa?<br>
O made some amendments and forwarded the rev.2 to all for comments<br>
Kavouss<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On 27 Aug 2014, at 01:03, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I made a small change to at the bottom of page 1 in v4 to explain the role<br>
> of liaisons.<br>
><br>
> I haven’t seen any responses to the other changes, explained in my note<br>
> 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 remaining<br>
>> concerns with the consensus document. It is based on the v3 that was<br>
>> uploaded by Paul earlier this week. Here is a summary of the changes and<br>
>> my rationales for them:<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Personnel decisions vs. All other decisions<br>
>> In section 4 I have created two subsections, one about personnel decisions<br>
>> and one about all other decisions. I have removed the language about<br>
>> “substantive” and “non-substantive” because it wasn’t clear to me what it<br>
>> meant and I think the actual meaningful distinction is personnel vs.<br>
>> non-personnel decisions. That is, for personnel decisions I think voting<br>
>> and going with the majority winner is fine; for all other decisions I do<br>
>> 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 since<br>
>> our numbers in terms of representation of constituencies (which themselves<br>
>> 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 that<br>
>> required all of the operational community representatives (or “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 my<br>
>> perspective the important parts are (i) that we spend sufficient time<br>
>> trying to accommodate objections, and (ii) that we document objections<br>
>> that cannot be accommodated. As long as we put in a serious effort at<br>
>> accommodation and objectors can explain in as much detail as they like why<br>
>> they object, I don’t think any individual or group should have the power<br>
>> to prevent our process from moving forward or to prevent us from sending a<br>
>> proposal to NTIA. I have therefore removed the language about satisfying<br>
>> 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 a<br>
>> numeric figure on “rough consensus” for the same reason that we should not<br>
>> be voting, and the term “rough consensus” does not otherwise appear in the<br>
>> 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 propose<br>
>> as a first step that the chair/co-chairs set a time frame for discussion,<br>
>> which can be extended if necessary. I suggest that re-evaluation of a<br>
>> published designation only occur in light of serious objections to the<br>
>> designation — this should be an exceptional circumstance. I removed the<br>
>> notion that the designation would continue to be updated until everyone<br>
>> agrees with it because I don’t understand how that process would ever<br>
>> 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 a<br>
>> 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 some<br>
>> 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 was<br>
>>> 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 those<br>
>>> items related to these draft guidelines. The ICG role must definitely be<br>
>>> fixed in the charter. What is expressed in the guidelines can per se only<br>
>>> 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 it<br>
>>> could imply additional ICG guidelines for "other" decision making.<br>
>>> So for the latest draft version (v3) coming up I took the liberty, not to<br>
>>> 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 should<br>
>>> try to revert back to the community, to the extent possible .. Yet,<br>
>>> having said that and within our administrative work, we may run into<br>
>>> different situations including:<br>
>>><br>
>>> - All proposals received fit smoothly into one puzzle (theoretical best<br>
>>> case<br>
>>> scenario)<br>
>>> - Gaps/missing information needed to complete the consolidated proposal<br>
>>> (request missing information from the relevant 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 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) and<br>
>>> saved a new version with my initials appended .. I tried to<br>
>>> reduce/eliminate the words 'decision making', to the extent possible, in<br>
>>> order to avoid any misunderstanding with respect to ICG's limited role of<br>
>>> coordination .. I'm open to better language and flexible to revert back<br>
>>> to the original text if so agreed ..<br>
>>><br>
>>> Finally I just want to note that this does not exclude that feedback from<br>
>>> 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 we<br>
>>> have substantial and consequential differences with respect to the final<br>
>>> proposal - there will not be any agreement (whether we vote or call<br>
>>> 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 largely<br>
>>> administrative work that is being done very well today), the main work of<br>
>>> reaching agreement should be in the communities. If there are<br>
>>> 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 <<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 overruling<br>
>>>> significantly affected parties. I do not like recourse to voting (for<br>
>>>> reasons that I have already explained), and certainly not when it can<br>
>>>> 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 for<br>
>>>> 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 for<br>
>>>> numbers or protocols.)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And being voted against won't solve the problem because you won't have<br>
>>>> addressed the specific concerns of the beaten party who would then<br>
>>>> lobby against the solution showing that we do not have a consensus<br>
>>>> proposal.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Essentially, I see a distinct risk of a formulaic approach leading to<br>
>>>> a risk of marginalising particular interests simply because they don't<br>
>>>> 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 communities<br>
>>>> and accountability to those communities. The chair's role is to try<br>
>>>> to pull together consensus, ensuring that serious concerns are<br>
>>>> properly considered and that the output is something that works for<br>
>>>> all and where there are appropriate safeguards. I agree that the<br>
>>>> discussion can't keep going around in loops (hence the need for us to<br>
>>>> justify our positions) and sometimes there will be a final dissenting<br>
>>>> 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 to<br>
>>>> a proposal and that which is related to our operations. For<br>
>>>> operations 2/3 of those expressing an opinion is sufficient to arrive<br>
>>>> at decisions, but for issues related to proposals we need more than<br>
>>>> 2/3 (other percent?) of all members with no more than 2 participating<br>
>>>> organizations dissenting. The role of the chair would thus be<br>
>>>> constrained by rules regarding when consensus is achieved, but the<br>
>>>> chair would have the ability to manage discussion or call for a formal<br>
>>>> 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 compromise,<br>
>>>> 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 with<br>
>>>> 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 contstituent<br>
>>>> groups in ICG ,WHEN IT IS PROPOSED qUOTE "For substantive issues, at<br>
>>>> least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, 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 also<br>
>>>> needed and there are different approaches to achieve it. And as I said<br>
>>>> 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 will<br>
>>>> 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 truly<br>
>>>> consensus, and everyone either agrees or agrees not to object, or it is<br>
>>>> _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 is<br>
>>>> 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 of<br>
>>>> standards of good behaviour and mutual respect - and I'm pleased to<br>
>>>> see that this is already very much the framework for the way that the<br>
>>>> 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 of<br>
>>>> consensus that might be needed? I'm just not sure I know how to use<br>
>>>> them...<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I'd firmly endorse the aim that "the ICG ... reach at least Consensus<br>
>>>> on the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to be forwarded to<br>
>>>> the NTIA" subject to our continued effort to try to achieve<br>
>>>> full/unanimous consensus or (at least) to have addressed address points<br>
>>>> of concern.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> However, I do not like processes that are supposed to be by consensus<br>
>>>> 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 or<br>
>>>> common ground or ways to address "reasonable" concerns. That aversion<br>
>>>> 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 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 issues,<br>
>>>> at least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, protocols, 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, it<br>
>>>> would be best to have then documented in the report than to be first<br>
>>>> aired in the discussion that follows the publication of our final<br>
>>>> 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 the<br>
>>>> 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 the<br>
>>>> possibility of one dissenting vote undermining an otherwise strongly<br>
>>>> 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 GNSO<br>
>>>> Registries Stakeholder Group employs a "minority statement" mechanism<br>
>>>> to allow for all views to be expressed when there is consensus but not<br>
>>>> unanimity on a particular topic. Perhaps we should consider a similar<br>
>>>> 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 come<br>
>>>> 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 (each<br>
>>>> member has to say ay, nay, abstain, or be noted down as not having cast<br>
>>>> 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 in<br>
>>>> London, and especially since then, I would recommend a dual approach:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> A/ MATTERS REQUIRING ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE (typically, to be decided as<br>
>>>> 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 of<br>
>>>> 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 Chair<br>
>>>> structure has been chosen and populated, it may wish to ask Chair, or<br>
>>>> another of its members, to be the point of contact),<br>
>>>> - administrative & logistic matters, in conjunction with the chosen<br>
>>>> 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>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> The chair's designation that consensus is reached is not her/his own<br>
>>>>> decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of course<br>
>>>>> this designation can be challenged by members. And this is what<br>
>>>>> triggers your question about "If several participants in the ICG<br>
>>>>> disagree with the designation given ...". I'm open to any helpful<br>
>>>>> 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 bit<br>
>>>> 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 the<br>
>>>> substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a minimum<br>
>>>> 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></div><br></div>