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

[joseph alhadeff]

There is redundancy, but they do address slightly separate issues...

The third paragraph addresses the issue of what happens to those people 
that may have provided input in advance and are not happy with the 
outcome.  The last paragraph may address people who were at the meeting 
and are not happy with the outcome. Would that be clearer if we moved 
that paragraph up?
On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
> Thanks Manal,
> I’ve inserted my comments in red
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> *From:* Manal Ismail <mailto:manal at tra.gov.eg>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM
> *To:* Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff 
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> ; internal-cg at icann.org 
> <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
>
> Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
>
> I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
>
> It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language 
> wherever deemed more appropriate ..
>
> Page 1:
>
> -4^th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with 
> small 'm' for consistency
>
> -I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my 
> problem but worth someone else checking) ..
>
> you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on 
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf
>
> Page 2:
>
> -3^rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been 
> previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and 
> one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that 
> meeting, these members  may provide their views to the ICG in advance 
> in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meetingfor 
> decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements 
> views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a 
> suitable compromise. Absent membersshould be invited to provide the 
> ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the 
> report /conclusions of the ICG.
>
> -4^th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph 
> as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it 
> was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the 
> paragraph ..
>
> I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be 
> opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general.  Maybe 
> Joe can assist...
>
> I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J..
>
> be courageous if you are not convinced...
>
> Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
> *From:*internal-cg-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM
> *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
>
> All,
>
> Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on 
> Sept 17:
>
> ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
>
> ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
>
> All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes 
> and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text 
> suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes 
> include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton 
> (off-list).
>
> If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send 
> them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document 
> directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
> On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com 
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     Alissa, Colleagues:
>
>     The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on
>     editing...  I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve
>     understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be
>     read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with
>     consultation, etc.
>
>     One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment
>     to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day
>     period for decisions...  Possible language which could be added to
>     making decisions could be:
>
>     ICG will make all reasonable efforts  to enable member stakeholder
>     communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members
>     on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions.  Where
>     appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be
>     provided.
>
>     Joe
>
>     On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
>         I am at another meeting
>
>         I have  read your edited text which seems to cover most or
>         almost every points.
>
>         Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
>
>         Kavouss
>
>     _______________________________________________ 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140917/bf2e404d/attachment.html>