[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Sep 8 03:30:35 UTC 2014
Kavous:
We all agreed at the meeting during conversations on providing a window
of opportunity for those not present at a decision to have a period of
time to consider decisions. This is not meant to replace a quorum, but
it is what was discussed and agreed at the meeting of the entire ICG, so
it needs to be in the document.
Best-
Joe
On 9/7/2014 6:34 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> From Kavouss Arasteh
>
> Dear distinguished G11
>
> Dear distinguished ICG Members
>
> I read all 14 messages
>
> It seems we are coming back to square one. That is disappointing
>
> People start to write from the scratch –That is also a pity
>
> I suggest that we do not make any addition to what I sent you on 07
> September as it was identical to the initial draft v5 with the
> exception that I had deletedreference to quorum and reference
> quantitative threshold for majority
>
> I strongly recommend that we just agree to the framework of what we
> have agreed on 06 September at G11 meeting and not to expand the scope
> of the document e.g. to deal with absentee as some of you added or the
> nature of the meeting ,whether it is intended to make the final
> decision or make an intermediate decision
>
> We do not need all these details since devil is in the details.
>
> Let us stick to the just case by case principle,
>
> That one possible example that is included was merely one possible example
>
> We do not need to give other examples as we would have ample
> opportunity to explore other possible example according to the case on
> which decision is required .
>
> Please kindly limit your comments to purely editorial , gramatic
> correction and/or structural edits without any change on substance
>
> We have sufficiently discussed the matter for almost 2 months and have
> had major problem
>
> reghrads
>
> Kavouss
>
>
> *
>
> //
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1]Otherbestpracticesthatcanbeconsideredincludethe‘StatementonRespectfulOnlineCommunication’,seehttp://www.odr.info/comments.php?id=A1767_0_1_0_C.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [j1]Is this still relevant ?
>
> [W2]To be discussed at the F2F meeting
>
> [MB3]I do not support this deletion
>
> [W4]Agree to MB12. It should turn out from the discussion how serious
> the objection is.
>
> [MB5]“Are” is correct in the current formulation.“Is” would require
> “objection”
>
>
> 2014-09-07 23:53 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
> 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 to allow that we limit the scope of the document to
> ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE at this stage due to the fact that we clearly
> mention that we treat the matter on which .after that all efforts
> are exhausred on a CASE BY CASE BASIS.
> I suggest we do not refer to IETF EXAMPLE SINCE OTHER WANTS TO
> ALSO REFER TO THEIR EXAMPLES .
> If you have editorial or structural improvement ,please go ahead
> but kindly limit the content with that example which emanated from
> the previous discussion on which most of you agreed ( even though
> I disagreed but I join the consensus and agree with that single
> example)
> I wait one or two days and then provide you with summary of all
> proposals on the sole condition that no example of any community
> be added to the single example that already contined in the document
> Regards
> Kavouss ,coordinator of G11
>
>
> 2014-09-07 23:45 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
> 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 <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>:
>
> This was a good summary.
>
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown
> (www.nitrodesk.com <http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Manal Ismail [manal at tra.gov.eg
> <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>]
> Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM
> To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma at yahoo.com
> <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com>]; Jari Arkko
> [jari.arkko at piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net>];
> Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
> CC: ICG [internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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 <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140907/213d97df/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list