[Internal-cg] Co-chairs revised draft 2.0

Joseph Alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Fri Jul 25 03:54:13 UTC 2014


The need for diversity was listed as a desirable characteristic in the description, the way people choose will determine the importance they place on that fact. Jean-Jacques raised the question about the number of co-chairs and whether we have consensus for that change.  We need to come to closure on that before we can proceed.  With only a minority of members having expressed any opinion I have asked for the definition of a process related to how to determine when online consensus is achieved, but that conversation has not been engaged. 

The next steps belong to the list.

Joe

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul Wilson [pwilson at apnic.net]
Received: Thursday, 24 Jul 2014, 10:36PM
To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
CC: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs at dyalog.net]; internal-cg at icann.org [internal-cg at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Co-chairs revised draft 2.0

Hi all,

I share the concern of Jean-Jacques about the constitution of the group of chairs, and the need for diversity (which I spoke to during the meeting).

Sorry if I also missed the opportunity to respond while the discussion was underway (due to travel) but I think this is important and we should take the time necessary to gain a fuller consensus on these questions.


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 25 Jul 2014, at 12:15 am, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Jean-Jacques, Colleagues:
> 
> We will need to come to operating agreements related to online process.  Specific dates were set for comment. Proposals were made for the change and seconded by the only people who bothered to comment. Requests of reaction to the proposal were made which generated no reply beyond similar reaffirmation.  What is our online consensus process if not taking into account comments made?  If those who do not agree don't comment I'm not sure how that is to be intuited or factored. There is no humming or "thumbs up" online and I cautioned that silence would be interpreted s assent and still no comments.  This needs to be an active and participative group.   How would you propose achieving consensus on new proposals/amendments?
> 
> Joe
> On 7/24/2014 9:54 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>> Hello Joe,
>> 
>> the reason I have not "reconfirmed" is that, as a representative of the ALAC, I cannot agree to the fact that the decision taken in London (3 Co-Chairs) has been modified in several iterations (one Chair, one Chair + Alternate(s), Chair and sub-Chairs...) without full consensus. There is no point in replying to a subsidiary question, such as my candidacy, before questions of principle have been properly dealt with (as things stand today, heavy representation of one citizenship and of business -in various guises- in the Coordination Group, content of our current draft Charter, the "technical" nature of the exercise to be dealt with only or chiefly by the "technical" and business entities, image that an unbalanced Group would give to the global Internet community, the risk that this may contribute to a misrepresentation of the true motivation of the USG, etc).
>> 
>> Because of their non-anecdotal nature, I have referred these points to the ALAC, and am awaiting instructions.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Jean-Jacques.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>> À: internal-cg at icann.org
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 24 Juillet 2014 13:51:22
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd:  Co-chairs  revised draft 2.0
>> 
>> 
>> Colleagues - as we March to Noon UTC, I wanted to provide and update on volunteers and one more look at the proposed final paper (attached for your reference).
>> 
>> To date the following information exists on our volunteers and their positions of interest:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Alissa Cooper – Chair
>> 
>> Keith Drazek – Alternate
>> 
>> Patrik Faltstrom – Alternate
>> 
>> Russ Housley – reconfirmed interest, but position not specified
>> 
>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat – has not reconfirmed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list