[Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 16:18:11 UTC 2014


Alissa
There is  no  legality to any decision made through correspondence until it
is approved in a f2f


2014-09-02 13:50 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Kavouss, all,
>
> My personal views are below.
>
> On 9/2/14, 12:32 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Patrik
> I tried to be constructive pls kindly do not misinterprete that
> I suggest that we need at the end of the meeting a brief summary of what
> we have agreed in order not to leave it to the chair and Vice Chairs to do
> it as they understood.
>
>
> Samantha will be at the meeting to take minutes. I suggest that she keep
> track of the action items and decision points so that she can read a
> summary of them during the meeting wrap-up and send the summary to the
> mailing list.
>
> We must know at the end of the meeting what we have agreed
> That point is not included
> From legal point of view the ICG in full f2 f session need to formally
> pronounce the designation of the chair and vice chairs
> What is agreed is only by correspondence and must be approved
>
>
> I do not think any one of this group’s communication methods should be
> considered more formal than the others. Furthermore, between meetings,
> conference calls, and the mailing list, it is the mailing list that is most
> accessible to everyone in the group. We have had several calls and meetings
> already, none of which involved all ICG members. The meeting on Sept 6 will
> not involve all members, and I expect given our busy schedules that we are
> unlikely to have many meetings or calls where everyone can be present. The
> mailing list, however, is available to everyone.
>
> Therefore, we should be able to use any of our communications methods to
> come to decisions, we should not privilege one over the others, and we
> should not spend precious face-to-face time revisiting decisions that have
> already been finalized using other means of communication.
>
> Best,
> Alissa
>
> Tks Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2014-09-02 11:23 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>
>> Dear Kavouss,
>>
>> Words chosen like you here do does not help our process move forward. We
>> are working together, and that implies we also when we might disagree with
>> each other must act in a constructive manner.
>>
>> Can you please be more specific on which one of your proposals where
>> disregarded and ignored?
>>
>> I did respond to your and other's suggestions, responded with what action
>> I took related to them. If you or someone else do believe I did draw the
>> wrong conclusions, just speak up and let the group know what the counter
>> proposal is.
>>
>>    Patrik
>>
>> On 2 sep 2014, at 12:14, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Patreik
>> I am disappointed
>> Once again what I proposed was disregarded
>> I still believe that they were valid
>> Pls reconsider that and do not ignor that
>> Regards
>> KAVOUSS
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-09-02 6:43 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich,
>>>
>>> With that agenda item I was thinking of giving the ability for ICG
>>> members to report back "what they see is happening" in the community. It
>>> was intentionally not specific. I.e. I felt we should have some time on the
>>> agenda where it was possible for ICG members to talk about the world
>>> outside of ICG.
>>>
>>> If specific ICG members want to say something, let me know and we will
>>> that way see how much time we can allocate per such "reporting back"
>>> sub-section.
>>>
>>>    Patrik
>>>
>>> On 2 sep 2014, at 01:39, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m fine with your agenda and Manal’s addition. I also agree to keeping
>>> an eye to best clustering.
>>>
>>> Re community updates: do you refer to those “communities” listed in the
>>> ICG members list?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 11:40 PM
>>> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6
>>>
>>> Dear Kavouss,
>>>
>>> Regarding your proposals. The schedule of events is part of the
>>> timeline, and I interpret your suggestion regarding "ICANN Enhanced
>>> Accountability Process" being what Manal already proposed.
>>>
>>> Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three
>>> chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had
>>> 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We will
>>> never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And that is why
>>> I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG (or similar to
>>> it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a conclusion.
>>>
>>> If we have consensus, within an announced timeline, then we have reached
>>> a conclusion.
>>>
>>> The rest are implementation details.
>>>
>>>    Patrik
>>>
>>> On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear Patrik
>>> Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation
>>> between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred
>>> to in the Charter
>>> I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached
>>> KAVOUSS
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>>>
>>>> Joseph,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we
>>>> cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to
>>>> actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.
>>>>
>>>>    Patrik
>>>>
>>>>  On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  The only question I would have is should we move the consensus
>>>> process document to be closer to the RFP discussion...
>>>> On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.
>>>>
>>>> Please come back with feedback on this list.
>>>>
>>>>    Regards, Patrik Fältström
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft
>>> Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140902/4d7c6bcd/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list