[Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Tue Sep 16 15:54:53 UTC 2014

Dear all:
I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. I have reviewed what I fervently hope is the latest stable draft of the ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, which was sent out yesterday evening by Alissa.

I want to make it clear that the draft is acceptable to me in its current form.

Also, I discovered three typographical errors which I can point out to anyone interested/in charge of editing, but prefer not to circulate another draft at this time to avoid confusion.

Have fun with your call tomorrow and I am so sorry I cannot be there with you.

Milton L Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:47 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh; joseph alhadeff; Martin Boyle
Cc: Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17

Hi Kavouss, all,

I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean). This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the language.

I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever, I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work.

My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for discussion on Sept 17.


On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Martin,
Dear Joe
Deal Alissa
I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d
Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but  stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply
Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions
I made comments awaiting his reply
I have not heard from  any of you since two/three  days ago
Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments
However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft

I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe

2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>:

I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ...  Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns?


On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:
Dear All,
I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG.

I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done  with a few comments and minor edits.  (See NIRA TECH comments).

The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting.
Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of  a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report.
It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted.  I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be,  or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it.

What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .

Mary Uduma

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

I look forward to your considered reply.



Sent from my iPad

On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts
Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution.

2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>>:

I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis.  For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered.  I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...

Perhaps a better phrasing might be:

All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the  NTIA requirements.

This would replace the last sentence.

Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...

Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...


On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence.
In the last sentence of  added bullet
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. "
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

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

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.


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.



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

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


Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

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/20140916/6ae07f90/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list