[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Sep 11 20:31:13 UTC 2014
I agree that operational communities could get special mention as you
suggest, but I think we also need to top that off with something like
the consensus that we are seeking is inclusive of all stakeholder groups
- or something that reinforces the nature of consensus in the same context.
On 9/11/2014 4:09 PM, Martin Boyle wrote:
> Thanks Alissa for making a number of the comments that I was also
> I too would like to preface my remarks with some general points.
> First: that a little group got together and agreed a text in the
> margins of the meeting is a good way to work. However, the final text
> has to be approved by the committee. I was excluded from the
> discussion in Istanbul (as was Alissa), even though I think I had made
> it reasonably clear that I have a strong interest in the text. It is
> surely better to have concerns ironed out now than to be raised at the
> next conference call?
> Second, I am perhaps alone in finding this text very hard to
> understand. I am not going to try to tidy it up and make it easier to
> understand because Kavouss has made it clear he does not want us to
> just do drafting changes. However, in my opinion, a "simple English"
> draft would be useful and would make our life easier in months to come.
> Third: on your comments on Alissa's points, I would note:
> 3. The file naming proposal was made without opposition and has been
> followed by most people. It provides a way for us all to follow the
> train of events.
> 4. I actually think that views should be provided to the committee,
> not just to the chairs/vice chairs. I think that we had an agreement
> about working openly, so I shared Alissa's concern about private
> exchanges with the committee's officers.
> 5. I also do not understand what "any other mechanisms of consensus"
> means. I am none the wiser after the explanation. I thought it might
> be a way of saying that there would be another attempt to find
> consensus, but that doesn't really fit the context.
> 6. Running a consensus process again might make sense if there is
> time. But in the text here, where we are at the point of running out
> of time, it does not make sense. A more pragmatic approach -- will we
> have an acceptable proposal -- seems to be more important.
> 7. And that gets me to a very important issue that you appear to be
> dismissing without discussion. I actually believe that the wording
> that I proposed is needed: if we overrule an operational community
> on a point that directly affects them, then you do not have a
> solution, no matter how wonderful our decision-making process.
> Proposals that might undermine the policy authority for ccTLDs (for
> example, by requiring them to adopt gTLD policies) would be totally
> unacceptable to the ccTLDs (and I would hope also to the government
> representatives, given the Tunis Agenda).
> I have seen Joe's comments that "we cannot ignore the non operational
> communities and this language makes it seem like they are not relevant
> to consensus": I do not think it is. My concern is more about a
> forced solution through a vote that just does not fit with the
> organisations that need to implement the outcomes. My guess is that
> NTIA would simply send the copy back and tell us to do it again.
> 8. I also failed to understand "consensus frameworks," but feel a
> little more comfortable with the idea of a case-by-case approach to
> the particular issue and who is affected and -- in the end -- will the
> final proposal actually be a solution which will generally be accepted
> when we put it forward at the end of our work.
> General comments: while a lot of progress in understanding has been
> made by the small group, we all need to understand what we are trying
> to do and agree to it. I think both Alissa and I are struggling to
> develop that understanding.
> I attach a marked-up version of Alissa's amendments. I look forward
> to a further round of discussions that try to get us to a final version.
> *From:*Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11 September 2014 19:37
> *To:* Alissa Cooper
> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
> I do not understand what we are doing here.
> If 30 people start to totally redraft the ddocument we never end the
> drafting process.
> Those who have not make any comments from 06 September should kindly
> understand that others made considerable efforts to have some degree
> of mutual understanding
> Allow me to reply to your comments one by one
> Thanks everyone for the work that has been put into this. My comments and
> suggestions are attached. Couple of process points:
> No Comments from KA
> * My understanding is that we intend as a group to finalize this document
> on our to-be-scheduled conference call on September 17.
> Comments from KA ,yes
> .* Wolf-Ulrich, it would be great if in the next iteration we could go
> tComments from KA ,yes
> o using the document naming convention established by Patrik.
> Comments from KA
> That procedure is not an approved way to name .that reflects views
> from one ICG.However, it is not important
> 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.
> Comments from KA
> I understand that any views provided to chair and vice chairs should
> certainly be provided by chair or Vice chair(s) in the absence of the
> chair to the entire group but I can agree with the amendments as it
> brings more clarity to the text
> * In Section 4(b), I do not understand what "any other mechanisms of
> consensus" means.
> Comments from KA
> Please note that ,at G11 informal meeting .at the begining people did
> not want to have any example.However, they suggested to give one
> possible example .However, some other people wished to include other
> Finally WE AGREED THAT OTHER EXAMPLES COULD / SHOULD BE EXPLORED ON A
> CASE BY CASE BASIS
> The term " case by case basis" was the heart of the whole issue that
> you have unfortunately ignored it and thus the whole discussions of
> G11 IS OVERRULES BY YOU .I categorically disagree with that.
> In order to implement , on the one hand, the case by case apèproach,
> and on the other hand, not to overload the document with several
> examples, the term "any other mechanisms " as appropriate and
> according to the case was included .
> * In Section 4(c), the second sentence of the Recommendation bullet
> 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.
> Comments from KA
> Your understanding is right
> First it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient
> In not ,every effort or utmost efforts should be made to explore ways
> and means other than those previously considered at the first round to
> acheive consensus
> * 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.
> Comments from KA
> The issue is that people tries to over emphasize should be pointed
> to each group as , as a general rule the interests of all groups
> represented in ICG should be taken into account .Agin you wish to
> limit every thing to three operational communities from the outset
> whereas that approach should not be taken as general rules.
> Can you please identify the link 7association of each and evry grouip
> participating in ICG to the three operational communities that you
> pointing toward.It is difficult to singleout only secific group as
> such .However, at further stage ,we may be able to focus on a
> particular operational or oerating community
> * 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?
> Comments from KA
> Part of the language is suggested by Wolf
> However, to reply you, It means that, should the above rounds of
> efforts were/ are exhausted ,chair and vice chairs ( you may
> add,together with intrested parties )are advised or should further
> explore other ways and means to identify other options 7 alternatives
> e.g. IETF consensus approach ,if the issue relates to the domain of
> activities of IETF .However, it was agreed that no such sopecific
> option / mechanism / alternative is referred to at this point of time
> rather leave it to the CASE BY CASE APPROACH
> I hope I have replied to your various comments
> General comment from KA
> Let us make every effort not to come back to square one .we did a lot
> of efforts to establish a great degree of understanding and that
> understanding needs to be retained
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg