[Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Aug 31 19:17:19 UTC 2014
Dear Joseph
Thank you very much for the addition.
However, having carefully read what was added ,I believe ,we may not need
to talk about "Cultural differences and language barriers,"due to the fact
that
1. It is quite clear that members of ICG certainly have "Cultural
différences"
2. Who and on what bais one could judge that another person has
"language barriers,"since
people express themselves differently and with differnt Policy and or
diplomacy. Consequently different ways of expression or making statement
should not be interpreted as "language barriers,". It would be
inappropriate that someone make such value judgement
3. Statement is statement and should normally follow some code of conduct
and not be made in a manner that someone lese interpreted as being "
disrespectful or inappropriate"
We are member of ICG and should limit ourselves to the scope of that Group
and perhaps avopid to get into schology of human being
I therefroe request you to kindly reconsider your addition with a view to
decide that it may not be nessary as it may lead to further disdagreement .
What did you decsribes .in fact, is correct but we may not need to pronouce
it
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-31 11:28 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
> I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too
> many terms that 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>:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-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/20140831/55752ac2/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list