<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All</div><div>As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept.</div><div>I request Jari to allow that we limit the scope of the document to ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE at this stage due to the fact that we clearly mention that we treat the matter on which .after that all efforts are exhausred on a CASE BY CASE BASIS.</div><div>I suggest we do not refer to IETF EXAMPLE SINCE OTHER WANTS TO ALSO REFER TO THEIR EXAMPLES .</div><div>If you have editorial or structural improvement ,please go ahead but kindly limit the content with that example which emanated from the previous discussion on which most of you agreed ( even though I disagreed but I join the consensus and agree with that single example)</div><div>I wait one or two days and then provide you with summary of all proposals on the sole condition that no example of any community be added to the single example that already contined in the document</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss ,coordinator of G11 </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-07 23:45 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All</div><div>As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept.</div><div>I request Jari </div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">This was a good summary.<br>
<br>
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (<a href="http://www.nitrodesk.com" target="_blank">www.nitrodesk.com</a>)<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
<br>
From: Manal Ismail [<a href="mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg" target="_blank">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>]<br>
Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM<br>
To: Mary Uduma [<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com" target="_blank">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>]; Jari Arkko [<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net" target="_blank">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>]; Kavouss Arasteh [<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]<br>
CC: ICG [<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a>]<br>
<span>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion<br>
<br>
</span><div><div>Dear All ..<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion<br>
during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more<br>
than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed<br>
that:<br>
<br>
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..<br>
<br>
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to<br>
the NTIA<br>
<br>
- A situation where one person can block the whole process<br>
should be avoided<br>
<br>
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated<br>
qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively<br>
(based on the number of objections)<br>
<br>
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling<br>
and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to<br>
approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may<br>
then be referred back to the relevant communities)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal<br>
suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:<br>
<br>
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus<br>
<br>
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text<br>
from this part<br>
<br>
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not<br>
being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a<br>
case by case basis<br>
<br>
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to<br>
follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF<br>
</div></div>document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus<br>
<span>process, particularly how to deal with different opinions<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the<br>
chance to attend ..<br>
<br>
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present<br>
colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same<br>
page ..<br>
<br>
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who<br>
</span>were present for the constructive exchange ..<br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
Kind Regards<br>
<br>
--Manal<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
</span><span>[mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma<br>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM<br>
To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh<br>
Cc: ICG<br>
</span><span>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div><div>Jari , Arasteh and All,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with<br>
correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and<br>
all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the<br>
document. It is a bit confusing.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and<br>
formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being<br>
that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object<br>
regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the<br>
communities.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the<br>
minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:<br>
<br>
<br>
1. Purpose:<br>
" Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.<br>
<br>
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms:<br>
Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :<br>
<br>
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in<br>
relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully<br>
analyzed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read<br>
''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for<br>
designating each ICG position as one of the following;'<br>
<br>
4. 4b under Recommendation<br>
......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached.......<br>
The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary,<br>
they should be deleted.<br>
<br>
<br>
Safe trip everyone.<br>
<br>
Mary Uduma<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com" target="_blank">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
OOOOsh!!!!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Mary<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com" target="_blank">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jari , Arasteh and All,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the<br>
Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the<br>
old version.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please<br>
let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are<br>
errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part<br>
of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the<br>
minor edits and remove some redundant words like:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko<br>
<<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net" target="_blank">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the<br>
IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282</a><br>
<br>
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how<br>
we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that<br>
light.)<br>
<br>
Jari<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>