[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