[Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Aug 31 08:52:17 UTC 2014


Dear All,
Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been
finalized
I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building.
I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some
comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3
Regards
KAVOUSS


2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  Alissa,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this: I can’t say any of these changes really make much
> difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would
> prefer the original wording I’m ok to accept them all.  I’d note that on
> page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read
> right to me:  should it read “…and that all interested parties **should**
> get involved…”?  But please do not hold this up this draft any further on
> my account.
>
>
>
> On your “separate point,” I would agree that there needs to be a certain
> time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in.  Two days
> can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on
> time of posting.
>
>
>
> I’d go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference
> calls and re-think it for discussion drafts – that there should be time for
> proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean
> copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion.  The important stage
> is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments
> before it is adopted:  could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all
> protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise),
> which allows for peoples’ absences or travel schedules?
>
>
>
> But more important is, let’s try not to rush from one draft to another
> unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to
> read)?
>
>
>
> And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these
> will often be at odds:  when we propose a change, there should be a decent
> time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response.  I have
> been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft
> when the next has dropped into the box:  very frustrating!  But also, this
> is not very conducive to coherent discussion.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* 30 August 2014 19:13
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
>
>
>
> Kavouss, all,
>
>
>
> Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These
> contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise
> suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized
> information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll
> get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an
> announcement.
>
>
>
> On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept
> 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails,
> document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion
> allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for
> responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy
> people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this
> particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am
> in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later,
> answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link
> ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to
> travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in
> transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we
> should discuss as a group.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Dear Alissa,
>
> Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal
> as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14
> is now amended or not
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear All,
>
> My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been
> taken into account
>
> I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal  to ignor it
>
> kavouss
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Kavouss Arasteh* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
> To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg at icann.org>
>
>   Dear All,
>
> My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been
> taken into account
>
> I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored
>
> Kavouss
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *joseph alhadeff* <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
>
> To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>
>  Off list:
>
> I've lost a bit of the thread...
>
> Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted
> for?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
>   Dear All,
>
> Dear Alissa
>
> What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP .
>
> What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of
> editorial nature but essential.
>
> There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
>
> I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being
> published as draft .
>
> I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have
> proposed are essebntial.
>
> However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have
> no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed
> by me are still valid and to be considered.
>
> I have informed in different manner
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Dear Alissa
>
> what Milton agreed was on consensus building process.
>
> What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of
> editorial nature but essential.
>
> There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
>
> I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being
> published as draft .
>
> I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have
> proposed are essebntial.
>
> However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have
> no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed
> by me are still valid and to be considered.
>
> I have informed in different manner
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>:
>
>
>
> I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please.  It doesn’t need
> to be perfected before we do that.
>
> For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton,
> and happy for these to be included
>
> thanks
>
> Paul.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
>
> See you at APNIC 38!                      http://conference.apnic.net/38
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Milton,
> > Thank you again for yr analysis
> > Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion
> > Pls go ahead and I thank you for that.
> > By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about
> that group?
> > tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you
> > Kavouss
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net>:
> > After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light
> coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
> >
> > We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move
> ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Mohamed
> >
> > On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Manal
> >> ,
> >> I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the
> adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination "
> >> I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the
> activities .
> >> This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just
> it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on
> this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth
> >> Tks
> >> Kavouss
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:
> >> This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in
> order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2
> things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work
> through the operational communities processes:
> >>
> >> -          to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down
> decision-making authority, and
> >>
> >> -          to make sure their contributions are considered early within
> the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
> >>
> >> Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it
> does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >>
> >> --Manal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
> >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM
> >> To: Milton L Mueller
> >>
> >>
> >> Cc: Coordination Group
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Milton,
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most
> knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
> >>
> >> Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our
> actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we
> undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective
> LIGHT.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to
> coordination without any qualification.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Kavouss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> >>
> >> My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
> >>
> >> OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
> >>
> >> OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
> >>
> >> OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller
> >>
> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> >>
> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> >>
> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
> >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM
> >> To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
> >>
> >>
> >> Cc: Coordination Group
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Alissa for your work on this.  I’m sure we could continue
> word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Kavouss’s comment on light:  I like the term as it reminds everyone
> that we are not planning to play the autocrats.  But if non-native English
> speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
> >> Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32
> >> To: Daniel Karrenberg
> >> Cc: Coordination Group
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Alissa,
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text
> consistent with each other
> >>
> >> See attachment
> >>
> >> Kavouss  the l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <
> daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
> >>
> >> On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the
> >> > secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its
> >> > existence) by Sept 1?
> >>
> >> I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> Internal-cg mailing list
>
> Internal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140831/a35a8144/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 119296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140831/a35a8144/ICG-ConsensusBuilding_draft_v4MB1KAV3.doc>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list