[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Fri Sep 12 18:21:47 UTC 2014

Dear Martin
Thank you again
Your explanation was helpful as usual
We are more or less on the same wavelength .
As for refernce to Case by Case approach or concept,I prefer the first
option that you proposed i.e, para  4.b. 1st bullet, to be re-written ( by
you) as “…and not decisions related to approval/rejection of content of the
proposals( emphasis to be made  whether  we mean proposal received from
various communities, or proposal to be sent to NTIA ).  The approach to
making the final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled
on a case by case basis.”PLS ADD the following
WITH A VIEW TO REACH CONSENSUS
mARTIN
I wish to point out and even emphasize that I AM FULLY IN FAVOUR OF
REACHING CONSENSUS BY ALL MEANS EVEN IF WE MAY BE PUSHED TO REEXAMINE THE
CASE USING DIFFERENT APPROACH/MECHANISM ....( Alissa may not agree but we
should do our utmost effort to be united in reaching consensus.
I also  request you to kindly include your example that I have quoted from
your  your message ( GAC or ALAC + ICC BASIS) in a footnote to * small
minority *.that  further clarify the matter and provide me an assurance
that we all understand what we mean by significan or samall miniriy

Please kindly amend your text and send me a copy of the clean text in word
format
Regards
Kavouss

2014-09-12 19:03 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  Dear Kavouss,
>
>
>
> 1. I am not proposing we use the term significant minority, but was trying
> to explain what a small minority might mean depending on the circumstances.
>
>
>
> By the way, I would pick up on your quotation from my e-mail:  I was
> trying possible examples and I also pointed out that the context of the
> opposition was also important.  I do not know whether other ICG members
> would agree with me on the analysis:  the point is whether we can use the
> qualifier “small.”  Just saying a minority is not acceptable, for reasons
> I’ve tried to explain.
>
>
>
> 2. I do not think the term case-by-case is needed as the concept is
> covered in a good number of places in the text.  It is probably accidental
> that the term disappeared from the text because neither Alissa nor I
> understood what the sentence they were in actually meant.
>
>
>
> If you really are attached to using that phrase somewhere, it could be in
> 4.b. 1st bullet, re-written as “…and not decisions related to
> approval/rejection of content of the proposals.  The approach to making the
> final decision where there is no consensus needs to be handled on a case by
> case basis.”
>
>
>
> An alternative might be under 4.c. third paragraph (deleted by me), to
> replace it with, “Chair and vice chairs should assess when it might be
> appropriate to conclude the discussion based on the nature of the issue and
> the outstanding objections.  This might need to be done on a case by case
> basis and in discussion with the members of the ICG.”
>
>
>
> As I said, I think it is covered, so I leave it to you to decide if you
> want the reference (and which one):  paste it into the document and issue a
> new and cleaned up version so we have a reasonably stable version for
> Wednesday.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 12 September 2014 17:01
>
> *To:* Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Gradually we  are walking towards each other.
>
> We are now much closer than before.
>
> One thing that I noticed in your mail is the following:
>
> Your reply in this message is
>
> Quote
>
>
>
> 1. " I would count all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant
> minority.  Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority "
>
> Unqoute
>
> If your views that "all of the GAC reps voting against as a significant
> minority.  Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a significant minority " Thus the
> above-mentioned  groups( GAC  members in toto or ALAC+ ICC-BASIS ) , if
> either of the two objects to an issue  their objections (  objection of GAC
> or objection of  ALAC+ICC-BASIS) WILL NOT BE are not considered AS minority
> objection but significant objection ,then I agree with you provided that
> all ICG MEMEBRS CONFIRM THAT UNDERSTANDING
>
> 2.Moreover, ,I still wish to clearly refer to Case by case approach in the
> text.
>
> Please while assuring me of  agreement of all ICGmembers to our ( both of
> us ) undertanding of SIGNIFICAN MINORITY, point me towards the area in
> which your text refrred to case by case approach/concept
>
> And I thank you very much for that
>
> Kavouss
>
> becoming
>
>
>
> 2014-09-12 17:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:
>
> Dear Kavouss,
>
>
>
> I just edited to try to remove the problems I had with the draft, which
> was what you asked me to do.
>
>
>
> I did not try to describe what a small minority might be.  But,
> unqualified, a minority for this group means 14 people not agreeing:  the
> term needs to be qualified.  How:  I am not sure I’d want to define this up
> front.  But I would note that I would count all of the GAC reps voting
> against as a significant minority.  Or ALAC + ICC-BASIS might be a
> significant minority if the issue was one that affected end users.  It’s
> the other side of my point that the operational communities need to be
> comfortable with the bits that affect their service from the IANA operator.
>
>
>
> It is also associated with my antipathy to voting.  Voting is a blunt
> tool:  we need to consider the consequences that we have just ignored
> someone, or a small group of people.  Hence we should not go there until we
> understand what we are dealing with.  I’m not going to be drawn.
>
>
>
> The bit you quote (“The decisions addressed in this section relate to the
> handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)”) is actually the first
> bullet in 4.b.  Alissa picked this up, but she explained why
> “above-mentioned” was not helpful and suggested wording.  It clarifies that
> we are dealing with “all other decisions.”  The section is 4.b., which
> could, if you want to be pedantic about it, be put in brackets after the
> word “section.”  My amendment was to replace the word “disapproval” (which
> is not the opposite of approval in this case) with rejection.  The point
> (as I understood the intention of the original text) was that the ICG does
> not have the role of rejecting proposals because of the content, something
> that Manal picked up.  This is an important point, so one I want to make
> sure is crystal clear.
>
>
>
> What do we turn down?  I think it might be because the process was flawed
> (it was not an inclusive process or there was a lot of opposition) or
> because it really won’t work.  Again I’m not sure I see value in trying to
> enumerate the reasons – won’t we know it when we see it?
>
>
>
> While looking for the text you wanted me to clarify, I noticed a typo in
> 4.c. 2nd bullet (recommendation):  in the text I added I typed shd when I
> should have typed should!  I’ll update the text in drop box.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 12 September 2014 14:20
>
>
> *To:* Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
> Martin
>
> Thank you,
>
> You took your British pen and proposed a British style new version with
> which I have no major problem ( BY THE WAY WHAT IS MAJOR ,I DO NOT TELL
> YOU, SINCE YOU DIS NOT DESCRIBE WHAT IS SMALL MINORITY  ).
>
> However, As I explained many times I would like you kindly describe what
> is small minority .Until the time that this question is not answered, I
> have serious difficulties to accept such a vague term due to the fact that
> it would turned against a particular group if other groups decide to
> penalize that group
>
> PLEASE KINDLY EXPLAIN QUANTITATIVELY OR GROUPWISE WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
> SMALL MINORITY
>
> how many members out of 30 or how many communities out of 13 communities
> that was described in one output message ?
>
> Secondly under second bullet relating to Recommandation, it is indicated
>
> Quote
>
> ·         "The decisions addressed in this section [AC1] relate to the
> handling and assembling of submitted proposal(s)   AND NOT DECISIONS TO
> APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL RELATED"
>
> ·         Unquote
>
> ·         Please kindly explain WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "The decisions
> addressed in this section"
>
> ·         WHAT  ARE THE NATURE OF THOSE DECISIOS?
> ire they dealing with sending the final proposal to NTIA?
>
> ·         if  NOT WHAT THEY ARE?
>
> ·         Then please advise how and what approach will be used for
> cases  DECISIONS TO  be made  for APPROVAL /REJECTION OF CONTENT OF THE
> PROPOSAL RELATED"?
>
> ·         What are those cases
>
> ·         I am sorry the whole document is vague, unclear and ambigeous
>
> ·         Please use your nice pencil /pen and properly and convincingly
> reply to my question
>
> ·         Regards
>
> ·         Kavouss
>   ------------------------------
>
>  [AC1]Both types of decisions are « above » -- but here we’re only
> focusing on Section 4(b) decisions.
>
>  [AC2]I believe Manal’s point here, which I think is critical, is that we
> will not be making decisions about proposal content. So, we should not say
> that we will be handling those decisions on a case-by-case basis, because
> we will not be handling them at all.
>
>  [MB3]Fully agree
>
> r b
>
>
>
> 2014-09-12 14:15 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:
>
> Thank you Kavouss.  As requested, I have made specific drafting
> suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a
> suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly
> different line from him).  I have left the comments in place as I think it
> is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
>
>
>
> I have not tried to change the filename:  as Alissa pointed out in her
> mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34
> *To:* Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
>
>
>
> Martin
>
> I agree with most of the things that you said.
>
> However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and
> move all of your comments to the covering.
>
> It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but
> prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one
> believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody
> should be given the opportunity to comment.
>
> What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only
> three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be
> met but we want to give opportunity to others
>
> I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach.
>
> Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark
> approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin
>
> SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish
>
> However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one
> focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and
> approach used by a particular community
>
> We need to be general and cover every body's case
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140912/a817143e/attachment.html>