[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 11 10:46:24 UTC 2014


Dear Martin,
Thanks for comments
May I then request you and others to comment on the clean Draft taking last
comments from Wolf, previous comments from Joe,Jari ,Manal and some edits
from me.
See what I sent few mints ago
.I wait till tomorrow Friday 12 Sept.
On early Sunday I leave Geneva to attend CEPT meeting for PP-14 Thus it is
preferable to make final draft before Sunday 13.09
Regards
Kavouss

2014-09-11 12:39 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  No, I still have comments on this document. I hope to post in the next
> 24 hours.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 11 Sep 2014, at 11:28, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   Dear Wolf
> I found another area which could be grammatically and structurally be
> improved
>
>
> It should be noted that a document is considered as a stable draft for
> approval, provided  that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days
> before the date  on which the approval process is scheduled  .
>
>
>
>
> [An effort should be made to document the variance in viewpoint]
> This part  is deleted since does not say any thing at all..I kept the
> remaining but replaced justified minority views deviating from the
> recommendation can be separately expressed and documented in the report .
> Based on that.,may I produced a clean text
>
>  Kavouss
>
> 2014-09-11 11:24 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>>  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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>   <ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making, V1 New Round,starting 08 Sept
> + WUK 10 Sep.docx,KA,10 Sep, WUK 11 Sept,KA 11Sep.CLEAN VERSIPON ,.docx>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20140911/9659f94b/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list