[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 22:37:55 UTC 2014


Dear Wolf,
Thank you for your kind and prompt reply
I have made following amendments to your draft as follows:
Para. 4 a,second sub-para. second part of that sub-para ," is  " is
replaced by " should be "
Para. 4 b ,first bullet below sencond sub-para,
The part saying " Consensus here refers to"  is  replced by" The
above-mentioned "  due to the fact that the paragraph to which this bullet
referred does not deal with " Consensus" rather it referred to " Decicion" .
In the same bullet the phrase" if needed may then be referred back to the
relevant communities" is replaced by" which would be handled on a case by
case basis " This was the overall agreemnt that G11 reached after the ICG
meeting in Istanbul .
Last page , in iii,
As a matter of fact, I am not comfortable in using any adjective like
"serious" or " firm" or "major" to describe opposition . However, to be
more cooperative I could reluctantly agree to use the adjective "
justified" as such opposition needs to be submitted with necessary
justifications .In that case the adjective  " serious" is replaced by"
justified "  .
Moreover, in reviewing the text, I found some structural and content
mistakes in para. c) ,second bullet which I have corrected
Finally  Under the same section c) in bullet 3 ,I suggest we replace"
example " by " option" to be consistent with the terms used in bullet 2
above .However, I leave it to you to agree with that change

I hope you and others agree with these small edits
Kavouss



2014-09-10 21:53 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   Dear all,
>
> attached please find my remaining amendments with the following
> explanations regarding some of them:
>
>
>    - 4.a. last paragraph: I’ve inserted “The selection is done by a
>    majority vote.”
>
>    Rationale: The para talks about “...run a vote...”. The succeeding
>    voting threshold must be clear.
>    -
>
>    4.b. first paragraph: grammatical edits
>    -
>
>    4.b. insertion of an additional bullet point re principles (Manal)
>    which I support
>    -
>
>    4.c.iii. re-insertion of “serious”
>
>               Rationale: Opportunity should not be given for *all* kinds
> of objection since the issue should have been discussed extensively in
> advance to the designation. The remaining objection should then be
> characterized as « serious ».
>
> I would in particular be interested in the chair’s/VCs’ opinion regarding
> the case by case approach since they may want to facilitate the process.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM
> *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Cc:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ; Coordination Group
> <internal-cg at icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ; Manal Ismail
> <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
> Dear Wolf, Joseph ,Jari,Manal,other members of G11
>
> Dear All ICG Members ,
>
> I wish to refer to the draft that I sent  to you on 08 September, taking
> into account views from Joseph and other relating to absentee’s comments
> emphasizing that chair and vice chairs should identify other possible
> mechanism apart from  the one  mentioned in that draft
>
> May I request you to kindly provide your comments in form of revision
> marks in the text and supporting arguments, if you so wish in the covering
> message.,
>
> We need to finalize this text as soon as possible
>
> Once gain reference to Quorum and reference to Quantitative Majority or
> Minority have been deleted and the focus is made on consensus building with
> the utmost efforts
>
> If not we should continue negotiations with a view to arrive at consensus.
>
> However, if all efforts were /are exhausted, chair and vice chairs
> together with any  other interested party/ties  should explore all possible
> ways and means to identify an appropriate mechanism for a satisfactory
> resolution of the matter toward consensus .
>
> One example and just  one example  to consider an sissue approved by
> consensus is provided .Other examples could equally be valid, according to
> the case under consideration,
>
> ( case by case concept)
>
> Waiting for your kind reply, I remain.
>
> Regards
>
> 2014-09-09 23:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>>  Dear Wolf
>> I do my best but in any case I am not pushing for any thing
>> I expect good will and spirit of collaboartion from every one of us.
>> The 10 points is the results of the discussion we are facing with.
>> Evey one pushes for its own.
>> I am not pushing for any thing but I am not COMFORTABLE with those who
>> wish that their ideas get into the draft word by word and coma by coma
>> You said quote
>> *We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we expect to be
>> taken into consideration"
>> Unqoute
>> YES we need to take all view into consideration but we may not able to
>> take all them into account since some of the views expressed conflict with
>> other views
>> Then we need to negotiate and negotiation has two sides giving and
>> getting.
>> I did not refer to any ICG commentimng on my views but I read the media
>> quoting some thing from me which I never said that .
>> Please carefully read my text which referred to MEDIA AND NOT ICG.
>> Perhaps I was not clear on that.
>> Now you are kindly requested to submit your views on the initial darft
>> with revision marks knowing that we all need to be collaborative and
>> mindful.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss .
>>
>>
>> 2014-09-09 22:56 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>>
>>>   Dear Kavouss,
>>>
>>> your perception of our discussion process simply does not meet it’s
>>> intention nor does it meet it’s performance. I have not seen any ICG member
>>> quoting you in the way you’re describing or accusing you due to any
>>> argumentation. We are all coming up with opinions and arguments which we
>>> expect to be taken into consideration.
>>> The only real issue I have problems with is not the content of your
>>> arguments but the way you try to push them through. It looks like
>>> imperative postulations as the 10 bullets in your attached email show.
>>> Those postulations do not admit counter-arguments and are not helpful for
>>> the discussion.
>>>
>>> Myself and others spend a lot of time to enter upon your specific
>>> submissions and questions. I simply expect from you the same.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>>  *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM
>>> *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ; joseph alhadeff
>>> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ; Coordination Group
>>> <internal-cg at icann.org> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ; Manal
>>> Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>>>  *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Allow me to  share some thoughts with you
>>>
>>> First of all,
>>>
>>> It is surprising and astonishing that I was mistakenly and wrongly and
>>> unfairly quoted that  to be against  consensus
>>>
>>> That is an unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or interpretation
>>> of what I have said or what I am thinking
>>>
>>> I am and have been and I will always be in favour of consensus
>>>
>>> That is a tradition and past and present and future practice.
>>>
>>> I was also mistakenly and wrongly and unfairly quoted  to opt for voting
>>>
>>> That is  also another  unfounded, wrong and untrue quotation and/or
>>> interpretation of what I have said or what I am thinking
>>>
>>> These are pure allegation and hostile positions
>>>
>>> Everybody who knows me is aware that I am always looking to find a
>>> compromise for any problem
>>>
>>> I therefore categorically and strongly reject such an interpretation
>>> wrongly made by media and by those who wish to give a wrong image of me.
>>>
>>> Now coming to the second round of consensus building process initiated
>>> by me on 06 September after formal ICG meeting in G11 and now circulating
>>> within the entire ICG
>>>
>>> The issue is not who is right and who is not right.
>>>
>>> The issue is we have to negotiate and come to agreement or consensus.
>>>
>>> Please therefore kindly not refer that X IS RIGHT or Y IS NOT RIGHT
>>>
>>> Some of you insisting that their views be accepted by others .That is
>>> not consensus building .That is dominating other’s views .
>>>
>>> Negotiation implies that we give something if we wish to get some thing
>>>
>>> We cannot expect that we get everything without giving up some thing
>>>
>>> The case by case approach that I propose is a workable approach since we
>>> still do not know which are  the subjects that we may agree or disagree
>>> .In one case we could have option x of arriving at consensus and in other
>>> case may be option Y to do so.
>>>
>>> Let us avoid establishing rules upfront before dealing with an issue.
>>>
>>> ICG does not merely deal with technical issues such as those being dealt
>>> with by some operational communities as other operational communities have
>>> had different mechanism to achieve consensus
>>>
>>> Consequently,:
>>>
>>> 1. be ready to be negotiable, and tolerable
>>>
>>> 2. agree to the case by case concept
>>>
>>> 3. agree to limit the inclusion of one possible example as already
>>> included and not give another example rather take approach of some of you
>>> proposing that chair and vice chairs shall make their utmost efforts to
>>> explore way and means in finding appropriate mechanism to achieve consensus
>>> or to reach consensus ,on a case by case
>>>
>>> 4. agree not to refer to quorum
>>>
>>> 5.agree not to refer to simple  minority
>>>
>>> 6.agree not to refer to rough or soft consensus
>>>
>>> 7.agree to refer to the possibility of absentees ICG members to make
>>> comments  when other ICG considering an issue for decision making
>>>
>>> 8.agree that chair ,in consultation with vice chair opt for some sort of
>>> temperature measuring process to find out the sense  and9or direction or
>>> trend of the ICG mood in discussing issues
>>>
>>> 9.agree that if the essence of your view points is taken not insisting
>>> for the full text that you have proposed.
>>>
>>> 10. maintain and practice the spirit of collaboration and cooperation
>>> and be ready to negotiate and join consensus
>>>
>>> TKS
>>>
>>> KAVOUSS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-09-09 19:56 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>  Dear Wolf
>>>> Dear Joe
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> Please be fair with me.
>>>> I have taken the essence and thrust of Joe, s proposal relating to
>>>> absentees of members at ICG meeting in two circumstances as he described
>>>> and I took his proposal relating yo exploring all other possible options
>>>> than the one I put in the draft
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Sep 2014, at 17:17, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Joe,
>>>>
>>>> you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a
>>>> condensed form but not all of them.
>>>> Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this
>>>> revision again.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>>  *From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM
>>>> *To:* internal-cg at icann.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM
>>>> *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> *Cc:* 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
>>>> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>]
>>>> *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM
>>>> *To*: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc*: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org
>>>> <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 <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
>>>> *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma at yahoo.com>
>>>> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ; Coordination Group
>>>> <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>:
>>>>
>>>>>   And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  *From:* Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM
>>>>> *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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> 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/20140911/e208f89d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38430 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/e208f89d/ICGGuidelinesfortheDecisionMakingV1NewRoundstarting08SeptWUK10Sep.docxKA10Sep.docx>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list