<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Martin,</div><div>Dear Joe</div><div>Deal Alissa</div><div>I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d</div><div>Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply</div><div>Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions</div><div>I made comments awaiting his reply</div><div>I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago</div><div>Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments</div><div>However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft</div><div>WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div><div>I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-15 12:18 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">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Mary:<br>
<br>
I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more
to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings
(recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with
multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be
clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to
address your concerns?<br>
<br>
Joe<div><div class="h5"><br>
<div>On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><span>Dear All, <br>
</span></div>
<div><span>I wish
to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult
topic and work of the ICG.</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span><span></span></div>
<div>I have uploaded to
the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with
a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The most difficult
part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always
prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be
ignored or overruled with voting. <br>
</div>
<div>Any voting in the
section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and
will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA,
again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities
will be wanting in the final report. <br>
</div>
<div>It would be helpful
if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not
provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on
the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here
and suggest a language to replace it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into
CONSENSUS. .<br>
<br>
BR<br>
Mary Uduma<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span><span><span></span></span></span><span></span><span><span lang="FR-BE"><a name="14878d25fd81f057__msoanchor_1" href="https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_1" target="_blank"></a><span></span></span></span><span><span></span><a href="https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6" target="_blank"><span></span></a></span><span><span><span lang="FR-BE"><a name="14878d25fd81f057__msoanchor_2" href="https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_2" target="_blank"></a><span></span></span></span></span><span><span lang="FR-BE"><a name="14878d25fd81f057__msoanchor_3" href="https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_3" target="_blank"></a><span></span></span></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"> On Saturday, September 13, 2014
5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff
<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank"><joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>I look forward to your considered
reply.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Joe<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
<div>
<div><br>
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
<<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Joe thanks for the time
,efforts and thoughts</div>
<div>Aloow me to thniik over and
come back to you .Perhaps the combination
of both by adding your last to your
previous suggestion with" in other words"
could be a solution.</div>
<div>Kavouss </div>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00
joseph alhadeff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote>
<div> Kavous:<br>
<br>
I think it depends on the nature of
the concern, that's why t needs to be
on a case by case basis. For example,
ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted
more testing of the proposal, but that
may not be the basis for saying it is
not a proposal that should be
considered. I think the operational
communities, because of their role,
and if the nature of the objection is
operational, have a different nature
of objection...<br>
<br>
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:<br>
<br>
All stakeholder communities have a
role in the development of the broad
consensus called for; the nature,
scope and breadth of support of
concerns/objections within and across
stakeholder communities will impact
the ability of the ICG to submit a
proposal that meets the requirements
of the NTIA process. Concerns of an
operational nature form one or more
operational community would also
significantly limit the ability of ICG
to submit a proposal that meets the
terms of the NTIA requirements.<br>
<br>
This would replace the last sentence.<br>
<br>
Its certainly not exact, but as we
have found, precise terms have been
beyond our reach because of the need
to properly apply these principles in
context...<br>
<br>
Happy to see if anyone has better
words than mine...<br>
<br>
Joe <br>
<div>
<div> <br>
<br>
<div>On 9/13/2014 7:24
AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Joe, <br>
</div>
<div>Thank you very
much for your attempt to
narrow down the exting
divergence.</div>
<div>In the last
sentence of added bullet </div>
<div>Quote</div>
<div><b>While
consensus of all
stakeholder communities is
the objective, it seems
clear from the NTIA
requirements, that the
objection of an
operational community
would significantly limit
the ability of the ICG to
submit an acceptable
consensus proposal. "</b></div>
<div><b>Unquote</b></div>
<div>Please kindly
clarify the situation in
theexample given by Martin
in which IF all 5 GAC
members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS
object to a case Under
consideration </div>
<div>a) Does that
objection significantly
limit the ability of the ICG
to submit an acceptable
consensus proposal. " </div>
<div>b) To which of
the 3 operational
Communities ( names, numbers
and protocol parameter
) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS
could be associated .</div>
<div>In general ,your
added text further clarify
the matter .I am comfortable
that you have maintained the
concept of case by case .</div>
<div>Awating your
kind clarification </div>
<div>Kavouss </div>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>2014-09-13 12:32
GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote>
<div> Colleagues:<br>
<br>
In an attempt to find a
middle ground, I have
attempted to address a
number of the issues
through small edits.
for small minority, I
have tried blending a
number of the concepts
into a new paragraph.
<div><span><span>·<span>
</span></span></span><b><span>Determinations
of consensus do
not fit into a
formula and the
concept of what is
a small minority
will need to be
determined on a
case-by-case
basis.<span> </span>Factors
of determination
may include the
nature and
seriousness of the
objection, the
scope of support
for the objection
– whole
stakeholder
community(ies) or
a subset of a or a
number of
communiites and
the attemps that
have been made to
resolve those
concerns/objections.<span> </span>While
consensus of all
stakeholder
communities is the
objective, it
seems clear from
the NTIA
requirements, that
the objection of
an operational
community would
significantly
limit the ability
of the ICG to
submit an
acceptable
consensus
proposal. </span></b></div>
<b><span><br>
</span></b>
<div><b><span> </span></b></div>
<br>
Other issues include a
clarification of subject
matter decisions (we do
make decisions as to
sufficiency of subject
matter to meet NTIA
requirement or the lack
of consensus on an
issue, that is beyond
assembling, what we
don't do is redraft the
proposal), as well as
Martin's question
related to why
polling...<br>
<br>
Hope these help.<br>
<br>
Joe <br>
<div>
<div> <br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On
9/12/2014 8:15 AM,
Martin Boyle
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span>Thank
you Kavouss.
As requested,
I have made
specific
drafting
suggestions on
the latest
draft in drop
box (although
there was also
a suggestion
from Joe in a
separate
drafting
thread where I
have a
slightly
different line
from him). I
have left the
comments in
place as I
think it is
important that
colleagues
understand why
I have
concerns.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>I
have not tried
to change the
filename: as
Alissa pointed
out in her
mail, this
should wait
for a new
clean draft to
avoid causing
confusion.</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Cheers</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Martin</span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>
<div><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US">
Kavouss
Arasteh [<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
11 September
2014 21:34<br>
<b>To:</b>
Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Cc:</b>
Alissa Cooper;
Coordination
Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[Internal-cg]
Consensus
building
discussion</span></div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">Martin</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">I
agree with
most of the
things that
you said.</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">However,
it might be
useful that
you suggest a
revision
marked text
and move all
of your
comments to
the covering.</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">It
seems that at
least I have
sympathy for
many of your
thoughts but
prefer to see
your text
possibly not
coming back to
square one. No
one believes
that anyone
else should be
excluded. A
team work
means
everybody
should be
given the
opportunity to
comment.</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">What bothers
me is that
some people
want to
restrict the
process to
only three
operational
communities
.While we
agree that
their interest
should be met
but we want to
give
opportunity to
others </span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">I
am happy that
you also agree
to maintain
the case by
case approach.</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">Waiting
your editorial
and other sort
of amendment
in a revision
mark approach
not
introducing
square bracket
and comments
in the margin</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">SUGGEST
CONCRETE
AMENDMENTS and
give the name
to the file as
you wish</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">However,
I wish to
reiterate that
I would have
serious
difficulties
if one focus
on a
particular
case or
particular
community or
the language
and approach
used by a
particular
community</span></div>
<div><span lang="EN-US">We
need to be
general and
cover every
body's case </span></div>
<div><span>Regards</span></div>
<div><span>Kavouss
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span> </span>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank" shape="rect">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank" shape="rect">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>