[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Sep 7 08:00:06 UTC 2014
Kavouss, colleagues:
Thanks for your work on this.
I have attached a draft with a few edits:
Where quorum was removed, I added a paragraph about what happens if
someone is not in the meeting when decisions are made. We discussed a
mail procedure during the meeting.
In the draft related to consensus mechanisms and recommendations, I
tried to break out the final recommendation decisions as a separate
section. I'm trying to make it easier to follow for those who have not
been part of the discussions. I also think its important to have a
chair's report that specifies the status quo of the impasse and what has
been done to try to resolve it.
Hope these help.
Moving on to second leg of the return trip-
Joe
On 9/7/2014 1:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote
> Dear Mary
> Thank you for your message
> I sent you what was generally agreed at the meeting of 11.
> I do not see any reason why I should do differently.
> It was agreed that
> 1. We no longer refer to quorum
> 2. No longer about the criteria to be used for decision making in
> terms of 1/2.2/3 or ...
> 3. We concentrate that the objective is consensus building for every thing
> 4. in rare cases of disagreement, chair with the assistance of vice
> chairs make every and utmost possible effort to find solution
> 5. If all efforts to do so are exhausted, we make all possible
> efforts to explore all possible ways and means to reach agreement
> take the case by case approach in a case by case approach
> 6. at the end one possible, among others, is mentioned to resolve
> a case given .i.e. the resolution of disagreement was left an open
> issue to be treated case by case according to the nature of the problem .
> 7 All pending amendments which were placed in square bracket are
> thus to be deleted and the text is editorially amended ( replacing "
> personnel " by administrative and so on and restructured as
> mentioned above
> That is all
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2014-09-07 2:21 GMT+02:00 Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com
> <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>>:
>
>
> Jari , Arasteh and All,
>
> Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions
> with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of
> 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the
> old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
>
> I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and
> formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason
> being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The
> power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with
> each of the communities.
>
> In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to
> do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs
> like:
>
>
> 1. Purpose:
> " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
>
> 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms:
> Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
>
> Publiccomments received as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in
> relation to its activities should bedulyconsideredand
> carefullyanalyzed.
>
> 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
> ''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsiblefor
> designatingeach ICG position asoneofthe following;'
>
> 4. 4b under Recommendation
> ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached.......
> The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer
> necessary, they should be deleted.
>
>
> Safe trip everyone.
>
> Mary Uduma
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma
> <mnuduma at yahoo.com <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
> OOOOsh!!!!
>
> Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
>
> Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
>
> Mary
>
>
> On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma
> <mnuduma at yahoo.com <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Jari , Arasteh and All,
>
> Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to
> congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when
> Alice's mail came in with the old version.
>
> I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version,
> please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that
> ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to
> object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each
> communities.
>
> In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to
> do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
>
>
> On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko
> <jari.arkko at piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net>> wrote:
>
>
> And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link
> to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
>
> (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit
> is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read
> it in that light.)
>
> Jari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140907/366f2810/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v6+ MBv6 of KA 06 SEPT 20124 +jha.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 104960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140907/366f2810/ICG-ConsensusBuilding_draft_v6MBv6ofKA06SEPT20124jha.doc>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list