<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="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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>]<br>
Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM<br>
To: Mary Uduma [<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>]; Jari Arkko [<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>]; Kavouss Arasteh [<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]<br>
CC: ICG [<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>]<br>
<span>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion<br>
<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">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 class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
Kind Regards<br>
<br>
--Manal<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">[mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">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 class="im HOEnZb">Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">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">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">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">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">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>