[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 11 09:24:13 UTC 2014


Dear Wolf
May I now produce a clean document and send it to others for final comments
notably of purely editorial and grammatical nature?
Kavouss

2014-09-11 8:34 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   Thanks Kavouss, accepted.
>
> As you can see attached I suggest to shift the text marked under
> “Recommendation” to the part where the evaluation method is described. Or
> at least separate it from the bullet points here.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM
> *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,
> 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/20140911/3b947249/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list