[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Thu Sep 11 20:41:59 UTC 2014

Joe, that's helpful - I think it works for me.



Sent from my iPhone

On 11 Sep 2014, at 21:32, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:


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 drafting.

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 back
tComments from KA ,yes
o using the document naming convention established by Patrik.
< https://www.dropbox.com/s/125evhui9x1thv6/Naming%20strategies%20of%20docum

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 examples
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 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.

Comments from KA

Your  understanding is right
First  it is tried to reach consensus once the issue is sufficient discussed

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<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/46172d05/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list