[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Sun Sep 7 21:45:47 UTC 2014

Dear All
As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to
expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07
Ept.
I request Jari

2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> This was a good summary.
>
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg]
> Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM
> To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko at piuha.net];
> Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> CC: ICG [internal-cg at icann.org]
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
> Dear All ..
>
>
>
> As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion
> during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more
> than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed
> that:
>
> -          Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
>
> -          Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to
> the NTIA
>
> -          A situation where one person can block the whole process
> should be avoided
>
> -          Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated
> qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively
> (based on the number of objections)
>
> -          Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling
> and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to
> approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may
> then be referred back to the relevant communities)
>
>
>
> ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal
> suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
>
> -          Stresses the need for reaching consensus
>
> -          Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text
> from this part
>
> -          Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not
> being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a
> case by case basis
>
> -          List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to
> follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF
> document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus
> process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
>
>
>
> So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the
> chance to attend ..
>
> Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present
> colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same
> page ..
>
> Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who
> were present for the constructive exchange ..
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM
> To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 :
>
> Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in
> relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully
> analyzed.
>
>
>
>
> 3.  Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
> ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for
> designating each ICG position as  one of the 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>
> 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>
> 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> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140907/896c36a4/attachment.html>