[Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Aug 31 09:28:07 UTC 2014


I have added some proposed edits and comments.  I agree that we have too 
many termsthat have too flexible an interpretation.  I also think the 
document is lost in the comments.  Can we move a next draft forward that 
tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better 
consider flow and duplication?

On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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>
>     [mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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
>                 <mailto:dg at apnic.net>>
>                 http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
>                 <tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100>
>
>                 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
>                 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>                 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>                 [mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>                 [mailto: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>
>                 [mailto: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
>                 <mailto: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 <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>                 >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >> _______________________________________________
>                 >> Internal-cg mailing list
>                 >> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>                 >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>                 >
>                 > _______________________________________________
>                 > Internal-cg mailing list
>                 > Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>                 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>                 >
>                 >
>                 > _______________________________________________
>                 > Internal-cg mailing list
>                 > Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>                 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Internal-cg mailing list
>                 Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>                 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             Internal-cg mailing list
>
>             Internal-cg at icann.org  <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>         _______________________________________________ Internal-cg
>         mailing list Internal-cg at icann.org
>         <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140831/b787bd44/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 123904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140831/b787bd44/ICG-ConsensusBuilding_draft_v4MB1KAV3JHA.doc>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list