<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Martin:<br>
<br>
I agree that operational communities could get special mention as
you suggest, but I think we also need to top that off with something
like the consensus that we are seeking is inclusive of all
stakeholder groups - or something that reinforces the nature of
consensus in the same context.<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/11/2014 4:09 PM, Martin Boyle
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE8188140A@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks
Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also
drafting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
too would like to preface my remarks with some general
points.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">First:
that a little group got together and agreed a text in the
margins of the meeting is a good way to work. However, the
final text has to be approved by the committee. I was
excluded from the discussion in Istanbul (as was Alissa),
even though I think I had made it reasonably clear that I
have a strong interest in the text. It is surely better to
have concerns ironed out now than to be raised at the next
conference call?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Second,
I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to
understand. I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it
easier to understand because Kavouss has made it clear he
does not want us to just do drafting changes. However, in
my opinion, a “simple English” draft would be useful and
would make our life easier in months to come.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Third:
on your comments on Alissa’s points, I would note:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">3.
The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has
been followed by most people. It provides a way for us all
to follow the train of events.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">4.
I actually think that views should be provided to the
committee, not just to the chairs/vice chairs. I think that
we had an agreement about working openly, so I shared
Alissa’s concern about private exchanges with the
committee’s officers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">5.
I also do not understand what “any other mechanisms of
consensus” means. I am none the wiser after the
explanation. I thought it might be a way of saying that
there would be another attempt to find consensus, but that
doesn’t really fit the context.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">6.
Running a consensus process again might make sense if there
is time. But in the text here, where we are at the point of
running out of time, it does not make sense. A more
pragmatic approach – will we have an acceptable proposal –
seems to be more important.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">7.
And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear
to be dismissing without discussion. I actually believe
that the wording that I proposed is needed: if we overrule
an operational community on a point that directly affects
them, then you do not have a solution, no matter how
wonderful our decision-making process. Proposals that might
undermine the policy authority for ccTLDs (for example, by
requiring them to adopt gTLD policies) would be totally
unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope also to the
government representatives, given the Tunis Agenda).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
have seen Joe’s comments that “we cannot ignore the non
operational communities and this language makes it seem like
they are not relevant to consensus”: I do not think it is.
My concern is more about a forced solution through a vote
that just does not fit with the organisations that need to
implement the outcomes. My guess is that NTIA would simply
send the copy back and tell us to do it again. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">8.
I also failed to understand “consensus frameworks,” but feel
a little more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case
approach to the particular issue and who is affected and –
in the end – will the final proposal actually be a solution
which will generally be accepted when we put it forward at
the end of our work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">General
comments: while a lot of progress in understanding has been
made by the small group, we all need to understand what we
are trying to do and agree to it. I think both Alissa and I
are struggling to develop that understanding.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
attach a marked-up version of Alissa’s amendments. I look
forward to a further round of discussions that try to get us
to a final version.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> Kavouss Arasteh
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 11 September 2014 19:37<br>
<b>To:</b> Alissa Cooper<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Martin Boyle; Coordination Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building
discussion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alissa,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do not understand what we are doing
here.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If 30 people start to totally redraft
the ddocument we never end the drafting process.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those who have not make any comments
from 06 September should kindly understand that others
made considerable efforts to have some degree of mutual
understanding<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Allow me to reply to your comments one
by one<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks everyone for the work that has
been put into this. My comments and<br>
suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">No Comments from KA<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
<br>
2.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * My understanding is that we intend
as a group to finalize this document<br>
on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from KA ,yes <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">.* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in
the next iteration we could go back<br>
tComments from KA ,yes <br>
o using the document naming convention established by
Patrik.<br>
< <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0"
target="_blank">
https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum<br>
ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from KA <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">That procedure is not an approved way
to name .that reflects views from one ICG.However, it is
not important<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in
the attached:<br>
<br>
4 <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* In Section 3, I believe members who
will be absent from a call should<br>
provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full
ICG, not just<br>
the chair/vice-chairs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from KA <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I understand that any views provided to
chair and vice chairs should certainly be provided by
chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the chair to the
entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it
brings more clarity to the text <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
5<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* In Section 4(b), I do not understand
what “any other mechanisms of<br>
consensus” means.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from KA <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please note that ,at G11 informal
meeting .at the begining people did not want to have any
example.However, they suggested to give one possible
example .However, some other people wished to include
other examples
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES
COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The term " case by case basis" was the
heart of the whole issue that you have unfortunately
ignored it and thus the whole discussions of G11 IS
OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In order to implement , on the one
hand, the case by case apèproach, and on the other hand,
not to overload the document with several examples, the
term “any other mechanisms " as appropriate and
according to the case was included .<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">6<br>
* In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the
Recommendation bullet seemed<br>
to require either running a consensus process twice, or it
just repeated<br>
what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to
run the same<br>
processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Comments from KA <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Your understanding is right <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">First it is tried to reach consensus
once the issue is sufficient discussed <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In not ,every effort or utmost efforts
should be made to explore ways and means other than those
previously considered at the first round to acheive
consensus
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">7<br>
* In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the
Recommendation<br>
example to the suggestion by Martin about directly
affected communities<br>
being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost
in the<br>
discussion last week.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from KA <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The issue is that people tries to
over emphasize should be pointed to each group as , as a
general rule the interests of all groups represented in
ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to limit
every thing to three operational communities from the
outset whereas that approach should not be taken as
general rules.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can you please identify the link
7association of each and evry grouip participating in ICG
to the three operational communities that you pointing
toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as
such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus
on a particular operational or oerating community<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">8<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
* In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means:
"Chair and vice<br>
<span class="im">chairs are advised to consider other
possible consensus frameworks in</span><br>
addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the
case.” What are<br>
other possible consensus frameworks?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Comments from KA <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Part of the language is suggested by
Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, to reply you, It means that,
should the above rounds of efforts were/ are exhausted
,chair and vice chairs ( you may add,together with
intrested parties )are advised or should further explore
other ways and means to identify other options 7
alternatives e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue
relates to the domain of activities of IETF .However, it
was agreed that no such sopecific option / mechanism /
alternative is referred to at this point of time rather
leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope I have replied to your various
comments<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">General comment from KA<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us make every effort not to come
back to square one .we did a lot of efforts to establish a
great degree of understanding and that understanding needs
to be retained<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kavouss <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>