<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>I understand from Alissa ,s reply that we continue to refer to MEMBER and NOT TO PARTICIPANT</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2014-08-29 17:51 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
No, that was not the intent of the change either.<br>
<br>
I don’t think we need to overly specify this. There is some name for the<br>
group of 30 — “members” is fine — and those people are involved in<br>
consensus decision-taking and counted for purposes of quorum. Liaisons are<br>
not.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Alissa<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 8/28/14, 5:55 PM, "Joe Alhadeff" <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Alissa:<br>
><br>
>Are liaisons participants but not members?<br>
><br>
>Joe<br>
>----- Original Message -----<br>
>From: <a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a><br>
>To: <a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>, <a href="mailto:martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk">martin.boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>, <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:56:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<br>
>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
><br>
>Mary, Martin, all,<br>
><br>
>I would be fine to replace “small minority” with “minority.” That is, if a<br>
>minority of any size — from 1 to 14 ICG reps — cannot have its objections<br>
>accommodated after extended discussion, those objections should be<br>
>documented and the group should move on. I would resist defining “small”<br>
>in any other way, since again our numeric representation in the group is<br>
>arbitrary and has unclear meaning of its own.<br>
><br>
>But if your request is that the ICG cannot progress a document that has an<br>
>objection from any minority, or from an operational community minority —<br>
>that, I believe, is not workable. That allows 1 or more ICG reps to<br>
>prevent the ICG’s work from going forward. Specifically, it puts us in a<br>
>situation where rather than sending a final proposal to NTIA with a fully<br>
>explained objection from a minority, we would not be able to send anything<br>
>at all. I think we have to be able to send something, even if all the IETF<br>
>reps object, or all the numbering reps, or all the ccTLD reps, or all the<br>
>naming reps, or any or all reps from another constituency. Sending nothing<br>
>means that NTIA has to make a judgment of its own of whatever state our<br>
>process ends in, rather than us informing them of the end state. I don’t<br>
>see how the former is preferable to the latter.<br>
><br>
>Also, I was the one who did the “member”/“participant” switch — it seems<br>
>quite strange to me to consider ourselves members since this is not a<br>
>membership organization — but it’s obviously confusing so I’m happy for<br>
>the term “members” to be used.<br>
><br>
>Alissa<br>
><br>
>On 8/27/14, 4:26 AM, "<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>>All<br>
>>I am sorry, if I missed some views or threads.<br>
>>I have same concerns as raised by Martin. A mere footnote of a minority<br>
>>objections, say 10% or whatever number that may be, can hardly be<br>
>>acceptable on substantive issues by those on that side of the divide. I<br>
>>think ICG should strive at having consensus in all issues and go to<br>
>>voting as a last resort, and where it becomes impossible to reach, the<br>
>>minority view should form part of the main report/proposal, including the<br>
>>rationale for the objections. I am being curious here: why have we<br>
>>changed "members" to 'Participants', any compelling reasons?<br>
>>Mary Uduma<br>
>><br>
>>Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN<br>
>><br>
>>-----Original Message-----<br>
>>From: Martin Boyle <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>><br>
>>Sender: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
>>Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:30:22<br>
>>To: Alissa Cooper<<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>>;<br>
>><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>><br>
>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process<br>
>><br>
>>Hi Alissa,<br>
>><br>
>>Thanks for your revised text.<br>
>><br>
>>I still have concerns over minority views where a group is seriously<br>
>>impacted by the decision. I've noted before that, for the names part of<br>
>>the equation, the ccTLD or the GNSO community could be in a significant<br>
>>minority. As a result, any recommendation coloured by a footnote<br>
>>objection from that community would hardly be a solution.<br>
>><br>
>>That obviously depends on what we mean by small minority (less than 10%<br>
>>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.<br>
>>However, I'm bemused by the (partial) change from the term "members" to<br>
>>"participants." I can see that we do not want to non-participants to be<br>
>>dominant in the committee for counting purposes, but we do not spell the<br>
>>consequences out.<br>
>><br>
>>Best<br>
>><br>
>>Martin<br>
>><br>
>><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>] 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<br>
>>role 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<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<br>
>>>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.<br>
>>>>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>
>>>><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<br>
>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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<br>
>>>>>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>
><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></blockquote></div><br></div>