[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