[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 11 19:59:54 UTC 2014


I fully endorse Joe's views and suggest to go back to the last but one
draft commented before Alissa proposing a drastic change with which we
tottaly ignore the case by case approach
Kavouss


2014-09-11 21:36 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

>  Alissa:
>
> The reference to other frameworks was to things like the IETF consensus
> process, but there was a concern of naming any specific one out of concern
> for having to name too many. I tried to clarify the language in edits...
>
> I have no objection to the language related to operational communities,
> but we cannot ignore the non operational communities and this language
> makes it seem like they are not relevant to consensus.
>
> edits attached.
>
> Joe
>
> On 9/11/2014 11:39 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and
> suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
>
> * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document
> on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
>
> * Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go back
> to using the document naming convention established by Patrik.<https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum
> ents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20documents%20of%20ICG.docx?dl=0>
>
>
> Couple of substantive points that are also highlighted in the attached:
>
> * In Section 3, I believe members who will be absent from a call should
> provide their views in advance, if they wish, to the full ICG, not just
> the chair/vice-chairs.
>
> * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what “any other mechanisms of
> consensus” means.
>
> * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet seemed
> to require either running a consensus process twice, or it just repeated
> what was in the first sentence. I don’t think we want to run the same
> processes twice, so I deleted that sentence.
>
> * In Section 4(c), I have reverted the language in the Recommendation
> example to the suggestion by Martin about directly affected communities
> being overruled. I think this very important edit was lost in the
> discussion last week.
>
> * In Section 4(c), I don’t understand what this means: "Chair and vice
> chairs are advised to consider other possible consensus frameworks in
> addressing the issues, as appropriate to the nature of the case.” What are
> other possible consensus frameworks?
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> On 9/11/14, 6:46 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  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> <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> <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
> .
>
>
>
>
> [Aneffort shouldbemadeto 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> <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> <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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:37 AM
> To:
> WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Cc:
> joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ;
> Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org> ;
> Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
> Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> <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> <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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:14 PM
> To:
> WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Cc:
> joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ;
> Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org> ;
> Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
> Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> <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> <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> <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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:52 PM
> To:
> WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ;
> joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ;
> Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <internal-cg at icann.org> ;
> Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
> Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> <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> <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> <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 <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM
> To: internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <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 <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca> <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> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> ;kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org> <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 Arastehmailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: Coordination Groupmailto:Internal-cg at icann.org <Internal-cg at icann.org> <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 <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM
> To:
> WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Cc:
> Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg> <manal at tra.gov.eg> ;
> Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com> <mnuduma at yahoo.com> ;
> Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
> Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org> <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> <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> <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM
> To:
> Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma at yahoo.com> <mnuduma at yahoo.com> ;
> Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net> <jari.arkko at piuha.net> ;
> Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc:
> ICG <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> <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 <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 commentsreceived
> as a result ofany forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities
> should be dulyconsideredand
> carefully analyzed.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.  Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read
>
> ''Following these basic principles, thechair will beresponsible for
> designatingeach ICG position
> as oneof 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> <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> <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> <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 listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://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 listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://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 listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://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 listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://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 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/725fa253/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list