[Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda

Wed Sep 3 10:36:02 UTC 2014

Hello Kavouss,

While in the context of a Board or any structural organisation body I understand your stand that decision taken online (the selection of the chairs happened on the mailing list) need to be **ratified** during formal meeting (which is normal governance practice), I would like to raise the fact the ICG is not managing a legal organisation but a coordination group put in place to do a specific job. We want to have simple and straight forward mechanisms to get the job done. We need to avoid over engineering this and adding too much bureaucracy to it. 

I will suggest as alternative to address your concern that we add a simple statement to the ICG page naming the Officers and the process by which they were selected. 

In fact do we have a defined quorum for our face to face meeting? If not, we may as well define and agree that all decisions of the ICG should be formally taken only our mailing list where we are sure we have everyone. That can be documented in our rule of proceedings. 

- a. 

On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then we need to put reference to that minutes when published
> WE NEED TO DO THE WORK PRPOERLY
> If there is a minutes officially published and in that minutes reference made toi the election then reference to that minutes to be made,
> However, approving the minutes of a conference call is not  legal as it reflects the views of those participated at the discussion.
> Alissia and others
> the issue was simple It is become more complex in referring to the minutes
> Once again simple affirmation of the election as an agenda item is the only possible way
> Pls reconder it again
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-09-03 9:31 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> Just responding to note that Samantha was on both of our last calls, including the one where we discussed the approval of the chairs/vice-chairs, and I believe she will be sending minutes for our review and publication.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> On 9/2/14, 11:50 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear All
> I still believe that whether or nor ICG is political or non political environment we need to follow normal practices that every body else follows..
> If in IETF or other ICANN constituencies that practice was not followed, it is not to me to intervene. However, as far as ICG which has been established pursuant to the announcement of NTIA( political or otherwise) we should formally approve or confirm the election or designation.
> I am n not convinced by the argument given below
> Quote
> " 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable."
> Unquote
> In the quoted paragraph it is mentioned that ' the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes"
> WHAT MINUTES.
> Dear Col;leagues
> There was some consultations ,there was poll.
> There was some outcome .
> Some voted .Some did not voted
> The results supported the Chair and two Vice chairs as contained in one of the last e-mail
> However, as ICG is a formal Group and its output and decisions are formal thus the designation /election of the Chair and two Vice chairs must be formally announced ,no doubt without any discussion ,what so ever ,
> I hope that you have now been briefed as you should be and kindlky agree to that process
> Regards
> KAVOUSS
> I have not seen any minute( s0 as e-mail correspondence is e-mail correspondence and in no way is to be understood to construe as " Minutes"
> As for SUMMARY OF DECISION or WRAP UP
> I am happy that finally it is being accepted thus Patrik is kindly requested to include that in the agenda
> 
> 
> It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-09-02 22:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
> All,
> 
> 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable.
> 2. I agree that a meeting wrap-up should be done. This may be done in a written form with bullet points. I would not ask for a document similar to the GAC communiquees which need prior formal coordination.
> It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> From: Kavouss Arasteh
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:54 PM
> To: Patrik Fältström
> Cc: Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda
> 
> Dear Patrik
> Dear All
> I humbly and once again suggest to add the two following items to the agenda
> 1.  Confirmation/formal  Designation of  Chair and Vice Chairs, at the very beginning 
> 2  Approval of Summary of conclusion reached/ decision made ( this summary should be prepared by chair and approved at the meeting)
> Kavouss  
> 
> 
> 2014-09-02 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
> All,
> 
> Can you who feel the most for the respective Agenda Items send me information you have, and I will try to add to the agenda so that it is more easy to understand. For example objectives.
> 
>   Patrik
> 
> On 2 sep 2014, at 12:19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Patrik,
>> 
>> I think the main issues are captured.
>> 
>> Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents.  This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus).
>> 
>> For example:
>> 
>> - IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP”
>>      Objective:   Approve RFP
>>                      Approve Timeline
>>                      etc…
>> Best,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback.
>>> 
>>> I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation.
>>> 
>>> Patrik
>>> <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140903/e3836d32/signature.asc>