[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Sep 9 13:16:39 UTC 2014


Wolf:

I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in 
the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our 
conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum.

Joe
On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> Dear Heather,
> I attach
> - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting
> - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting
> - my amendments/comments to this
> I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> *From:* Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM
> *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
> Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group 
> that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a 
> copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to 
> compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on 
> the Sep. 17 call.
>
> Heather
>
>
> *From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
> *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM
> *To*: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc*: Coordination Group <Internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
> All,
> let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session 
> ("G11") was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead 
> towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks 
> again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to 
> Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.
> As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I've made a 
> comparison between the document version which has been on the table 
> when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has 
> edited.
> Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to 
> use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss 
> the process it should be diligently prepared.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
> *To:* WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma 
> <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> 
> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
> Dear All,
> I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your 
> comments
> I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept.
> Please consider this clean version and
> 1 make any editorial /language improvement
> 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft.
> There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel 
> comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable .
> Kavouss
> 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de 
> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>:
>
>     And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
>
>
>     Best regards
>
>     Wolf-Ulrich
>
>     *From:* Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM
>     *To:* Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko
>     <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh
>     <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>     *Cc:* ICG <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 :
>
>     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 <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/20140909/c8e45d7a/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list