<div dir="ltr"><div>Alissa,</div><div>Thank you for your brief</div><div>I am of the opinion that those ICG member's who representing the operational communities are the front runners for the task before us ,i.e. ICG Members from ccNSO,GNSO NRO ,ASO,IETF</div><div>After these ICG members other ICG members could meet and brief their respective communities as well as any other who wish to join.</div><div>We need to be benefited from the expertise of the people.</div><div>What we should be careful is to provide and share those information that we have some expertise ,</div><div>I have no problem that ICG partly or totally meet with some of the group's in a combined session and not individually .</div><div>We do not have time to do individual briefing . On the contrary each ICG members from those 13 communities fro which were previously identified before could meet with their respective community and brief then .In fact through that function they discharge their duties and responsibilities .</div><div>I am not in favour of combined meeting just to talk on issues which either are obvious or have not yet been identified or just talk for talk </div><div>However, we have an extended open meeting in which those interested people could attend and share their views.</div><div>It should be noted that there areas which we do not have a clear idea about e.g. ICANN enhanced accountability as the issue has been just raised.</div><div>Some thing came to my mind from the on going exchange of the views expressed recently and that is " Examining " what do we mean by examining in ICG apart from those operational communities in particular and other 9 communities in general that might be in a position to make some test m what are the scope of testing function.</div><div>Could we have some explanation from those raising this issue please?</div><div>Kavouss</div><div>.</div><div><br></div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><p align="LEFT">1</p></font></font><div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3">
</font></font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT" size="5"><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT" size="5"></font></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT" size="5"><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT" size="5"><p align="LEFT">ICG Guidelines for Decision Making</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">17 September 2014</p></font></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT" size="5"><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT" size="5">
</font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">1. Purpose</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">The objective of this document is to assist the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Group) to optimize productivity and effectiveness in the process of making decisions.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Participation in the decision making process is reserved to the full members of the ICG and</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">hence does not include ICANN Board Liaison, ICANN Staff Liason Expert, or Secretariat.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">The ICG should operate under the principles of transparency and openness, which means, </font><i><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT">inter</font></i></p><div><i><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT">
</font></i><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT"><i>alia</i></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">transcribed, and Statements of Interest (SOIs), to include any conflicts of interest (COI), are</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">required from ICG members and shall be publicly available.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ICG members should make every effort to respect the principles outlined in the ICANN</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">Accountability and Transparency Framework, see </font><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><a href="http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-transframeworks-">http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-transframeworks-</a></font></font></p><div><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">principles-10jan08.pdf </font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">for further details</font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1">1</font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">, taking into account that this</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">accountability is under full review by ICANN within the global multistakeholder community.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">If an ICG member feels that these standards are being abused, she/he should appeal to the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">chair or one of the vice-chairs. It is important to emphasize that expressed disagreement is</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">not, by itself, indicative of abusive behavior. At all times, ICG members should expect and</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">hold themselves to respectful articulation of any points of disagreement. If abuse is</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">demonstrated, the chair of the ICG in full consultation and collaboration with the two vice</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">chairs needs to consider the matter and take necessary action, as appropriate to properly</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">handle the case.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ICG members should participate faithfully in the ICG’s process (e.g., attending meetings,</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">providing timely input, monitoring discussions and fully collaborating with each other to</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">achieve the established objectives).</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">The ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable stakeholder communities to have</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">appropriate time to consult on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions,</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">including through public comment periods, where practicable and appropriate. Public</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">comments received as a result of a public consultation held in relation to the activities of the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ICG should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. In addition, the ICG should provide its</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Calibri" size="1"><font face="Calibri" size="1"></font></font></div><font face="Calibri" size="1"><font face="Calibri" size="1"><p align="LEFT">1</p></font></font><div><font face="Calibri" size="1"><font face="Calibri" size="1">
</font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"></font></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><p align="LEFT">Other best practices that can be considered include the ‘Statement on Respectful Online Communication’, see</p></font></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1">
</font></font><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"></font></font></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><font color="#0000ff" face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf</a></font></font></font><font face="Calibri"><font face="Calibri">.</font></font></p><div><font face="Calibri"><font face="Calibri">
</font></font><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font></font></div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><p align="LEFT">2</p></font></font><div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3">
</font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">rationale for including or not the different comments received and, if appropriate, how these</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">will be addressed in the report of the ICG.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">3. Making, Revisiting and Reconsidering ICG Decisions</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">The ICG may make decisions on its public mailing list or during meetings. Meetings are to be</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">conducted face-to-face or through conference calls.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Unless it is specified before a meeting that the ICG is intending to finalize a decision during the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">meeting, the decisions taken at a meeting in which one or more members are absent should</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">provide 7 calendar days for those absentee members to review the decision and provide any input</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">related to it; such input would be considered at the subsequent meeting (physical, by</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">correspondence, or by conference call) and taken into account, if so agreed.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">For cases where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">and one or more members are not present at that meeting, these members may provide their</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">views to the ICG in advance in order for those views to be considered at the scheduled meeting.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Should the decision made not be consistent with the views of those absent, there should be</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report/conclusions of the ICG.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">For cases where ICG proposes to finalize a decision in a scheduled meeting and some members</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">are opposed to the decision reached at such meeting, there should be another attempt(s) to find a</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">suitable compromise. Where that fails, member(s) who oppose should be invited to provide the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report/conclusions of the ICG.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">4. Methodology for Making Decisions</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">a. Administrative Decisions</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">The ICG may encounter instances where it needs to select person(s)/officer(s) as applicable for</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">particular tasks. For example, the ICG may need to select secretarial support, speakers for</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">particular events, liaisons to particular groups or the media, or chairs or vice chairs. In some</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">cases, it may become obvious through discussion that all interested ICG members (those who</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">have expressed an opinion) agree on a particular selection. In those cases, a chair, vice chair, or</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">designee may approve a particular selection on the basis of the obvious agreement of all of those</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">who expressed an opinion.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">In other cases where multiple different opinions have been expressed, a chair, vice chair, or</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">designee may choose to run a vote to make the selection. The selection should be done by a</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">majority vote.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font></font></div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><p align="LEFT">3</p></font></font><div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3">
</font></font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">b. All Other Decisions</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">This section pertains to cases when the ICG encounters instances in which it needs to make</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">decisions unrelated to administrative decisions described in Section 4(a) above; obvious</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">examples are the decision to send the final transition proposal to NTIA as well as other</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">intermediate decisions.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">The mechanism that allows the ICG to come to a final decision regarding a certain topic is based</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">on the following principles:</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and assembling of submitted</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">proposal(s) and not decisions related to approval/rejection of the content of the proposals.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">The ICG is meant to assemble proposals from the various communities. If there is an issue</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">with the subject matter of the proposals, it is not the role of the ICG to redraft them, but</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">rather to return them to the originating communty for further work with guidance as to what</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">issues need to be addressed.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">The aim of the discussion should be to reach a conclusion that no ICG member opposes.</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">Reasons for opposition should be clearly stated, along with specific alternative language</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">which would overcome the opposition, allowing the communities and the ICG, wherever</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">possible, to understand concerns and identify compromise solutions.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">The chair will provide a time frame (to be fixed according to the prevailing circumstances)</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">for a given case under consideration, for discussion and consultation needed to address the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">specific issue.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">When such time, or extension of such time, for the ICG to consider and attempt to</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">accommodate objections has expired, the chair and vice chairs, in consultation with the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">members, should identify common ground relevant and appropriate to the issue under</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">discussion and do their utmost to propose possible ways forward.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font color="#1f497d" face="Symbol" size="3"><font color="#1f497d" face="Symbol" size="3"><font color="#1f497d" face="Symbol" size="3"></font></font></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font color="#1f497d" face="Symbol" size="3"><font color="#1f497d" face="Symbol" size="3"><font color="#1f497d" face="Symbol" size="3">• </font></font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">It is obvious that no single member or a small minority should be allowed to block the</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">decision making process. In other words a situation where a minority would feel it needed to</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">block consensus should be avoided. Counter voices need to be listened to very carefully and</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">a serious attempt must be made to take all concerns into account. If a full agreement is not</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">possible, those still in opposition should be invited to prepare a written explanation of their</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">position that should be published with the decision. See relevant paragraphs below.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">(whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of one or more communities) and the attempts</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">that have been made to resolve those objections. While consensus of all stakeholder</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements that the objection of</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">a majority of an operational community would preclude the ability of the ICG to submit an</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font></font></div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><p align="LEFT">4</p></font></font><div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3">
</font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">acceptable consensus proposal. In other words, all stakeholder communities have a role in the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">operational nature from one or more operational community would also significantly limit</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">c. Designation of recommendation</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">position as having one of the following designations:</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">Recommendation by consensus </font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">- when no one in the group speaks against the</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">recommendation in its last readings.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Symbol"></font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="Symbol">• </font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">Recommendation </font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">- a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">document their objections for the final report.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><p align="LEFT"><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">One possible example in the “Recommendation” category, </font><i><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT">inter alia</font></i><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">, could be that a</font></p><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">Recommendation could be considered as adopted if at most a small minority disagree by</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">documenting their objection(s), the representatives of an operational community significantly</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">and directly affected by the conclusion have not been overruled, and the consensus sought was</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">inclusive of all ICG communities. The ICG should bear in mind that the consensus that we are</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">seeking must be inclusive of all stakeholder groups: the final proposal needs to reflect that there</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">is broad support for the approach from across the communities, if it is to be an acceptable way</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">forward.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Minority views opposing the recommendation should be documented and attributed in the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">report.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"></font></b></div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT"><p align="LEFT">The agreed and fundamental objective of the ICG is to reach at least the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Recommendation designation in favor of forwarding the Proposal for the IANA</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Stewardship Transition to the NTIA.</p></font></b><div><b><font face="TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT">
</font></b><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">In order to examine and evaluate the degree of acceptability of a Recommendation the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">following method is proposed for consideration, where necessary:</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">i. The chair and/or vice chairs should establish a time frame for discussion about a</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">particular issue. If that time frame expires and new issues are still being raised, the chair</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">and/or vice chairs may extend the time frame for discussion, as the case may be. The</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">above-mentioned time frame(s) should be clearly included in the summary of the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">discussions.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">ii. After the group has discussed an issue exhaustively for all issues to have been raised,</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">understood and discussed, the chair and/or vice chairs make an evaluation of the</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT">
</font><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font></font></div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3"><p align="LEFT">5</p></font></font><div><font face="Calibri" size="3"><font face="Calibri" size="3">
</font></font><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font></div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"><p align="LEFT">designation and publish it for the group with a clear timescale to review. In establishing</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">timescale, account should be taken of the related community discussion needed.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">iii. If any justified objection is raised concerning the designation, the chair and/or vicechairs</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">should reevaluate and possibly publish an updated evaluation.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Recommendation calls should always be available to the entire ICG and, for this reason,</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">should be published on the designated mailing list to ensure that all ICG members have the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">opportunity to fully participate in the process. It is the role of the chair, in full consultation</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">and collaboration with vice chairs, to designate that a recommendation has been achieved and</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">to announce this designation to the ICG. Members of the ICG should be given the opportunity</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">to raise objections to the designation done by the chair as part of the discussion, per the</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">methodology outlined above.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Any ICG member who believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">discounted should discuss the circumstances with the ICG chair/vice chairs. The chair, in full</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">consultation with vice chairs, needs to carefully examine the case with the view to find a</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">satisfactory solution for the matter through all appropriate means. The conclusions of this</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">discussion should be documented.</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">Regarding approval of draft documents, a document is considered as a stable draft for approval,</p><div>
</div><p align="LEFT">provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the date on which the approval</p><div>
</div><p>process is scheduled.</p></font><div><font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT"></font> i.e</div><div>CCS </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-18 20:48 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">I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think<br>
one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter<br>
states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage<br>
in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of<br>
that, in my opinion.<br>
<br>
Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive<br>
list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people,<br>
or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with<br>
any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If<br>
that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or<br>
having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as<br>
we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload,<br>
just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on,<br>
there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very<br>
capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our<br>
IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage<br>
them as well.<br>
<br>
We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC<br>
because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to<br>
hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups —<br>
ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should<br>
do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if<br>
people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.<br>
<br>
I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings<br>
will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So<br>
there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone<br>
from attending or tuning in.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Alissa<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <<a href="mailto:Lynn@lstamour.org">Lynn@lstamour.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor<br>
>are they necessarily working to the ones we are. I believe we have a<br>
>responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and<br>
>understandable as possible. In other words, to do whatever we can to<br>
>minimize barriers to participation or support. Dialogue in more focused<br>
>groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11<br>
>group on "consensus".<br>
><br>
>I strongly support Martin and Manal's points. Maybe those that are more<br>
>reluctant could expound a bit?<br>
><br>
>Best,<br>
>Lynn<br>
><br>
>On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>><br>
>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me: I have a lot of sympathy<br>
>>for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers<br>
>>that they can confront in engaging in processes. I also think that the<br>
>>non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage<br>
>>and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to<br>
>>their engagement). So these meetings should not be a chore but an<br>
>>opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in<br>
>>good shape.<br>
>><br>
>> So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.<br>
>><br>
>> I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well<br>
>>represented on the ICG. But even here, dialogue with the<br>
>>cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.<br>
>><br>
>> There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information<br>
>>fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for<br>
>>another group. I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a<br>
>>note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some<br>
>>time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.<br>
>><br>
>> Then we have the post RfP discussions: surely a new environment and<br>
>>again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we<br>
>>understand what people are saying and where concerns lie. We need to<br>
>>keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not<br>
>>get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package<br>
>>together.<br>
>><br>
>> Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement<br>
>>opportunity!<br>
>><br>
>> Hope this helps<br>
>><br>
>> Martin<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>] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff<br>
>> Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles<br>
>><br>
>> Patrik, colleagues:<br>
>><br>
>> Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number<br>
>>of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net<br>
>>Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate<br>
>>meeting with GAC... As much as I would prefer not to have such a<br>
>>separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in<br>
>>the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however<br>
>>that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to<br>
>>the process.<br>
>><br>
>> On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with<br>
>>communities?<br>
>><br>
>> Joe<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:<br>
>> All,<br>
>><br>
>> Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open<br>
>>session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.<br>
>><br>
>> The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):<br>
>><br>
>> Thursday, 16 October.<br>
>> Start time: 10:00<br>
>> End time: 12:00<br>
>><br>
>> I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.<br>
>><br>
>> Patrik<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>
<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>