[Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Sep 13 11:24:01 UTC 2014


Joe,
Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence.
In the last sentence of  added bullet
Quote
*While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems
clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational
community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an
acceptable consensus proposal. "*
*Unquote*
Please kindly clarify the  situation in theexample given by Martin  in
which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under
consideration
a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit
an acceptable consensus proposal. "
b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol
parameter )  GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated .
In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable
that you have maintained the concept of case by case .
Awating your kind clarification
Kavouss

2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

>  Colleagues:
>
> In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a
> number of the issues through small edits.  for small minority, I have tried
> blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph.
>
> ·         *Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the
> concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a
> case-by-case basis.  Factors of determination may include the nature and
> seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection –
> whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of
> communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those
> concerns/objections.  While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the
> objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of
> an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG
> to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
>
>
>
> Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do
> make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement
> or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we
> don't do is redraft the proposal),  as well as Martin's question related to
> why polling...
>
> Hope these help.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
>
>  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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140913/5725ed39/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list