[Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 18 19:31:00 UTC 2014

Thank you for your brief
I am of the opinion that those ICG member's who representing the
operational communities are the front runners for the task before us ,i.e.
After these ICG  members other ICG members could meet and brief their
respective communities as well as any other who wish to join.
We need to be benefited from the expertise of the people.
What we should be careful is to provide  and share those information that
we have some expertise ,
I have no problem that ICG partly or totally meet with some of the group's
in a combined session and not individually .
We do not have time to do individual briefing . On the contrary each ICG
members from those 13 communities fro which were previously identified
before could meet with their respective community and brief then .In fact
through that function they discharge their duties and responsibilities .
I am not in favour of combined meeting just to talk on issues which either
are obvious or have not yet been identified or just talk for talk
However, we have an extended open meeting in which those interested people
could attend and share their views.
It should be noted that there areas which we do not have a clear idea about
e.g. ICANN enhanced accountability as the issue has been just raised.
Some thing came to my mind from the on going exchange of the views
expressed  recently and that is " Examining " what do we mean by examining
in ICG apart from those operational communities in particular and other 9
communities in general that might be in a position to make some test m what
are the scope  of testing function.
Could we have some explanation from those raising this issue please?


*ICG Guidelines for Decision Making 17 September 2014 1. Purpose*

The objective of this document is to assist the ICG (IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination

Group) to optimize productivity and effectiveness in the process of making

Participation in the decision making process is reserved to the full
members of the ICG and

hence does not include ICANN Board Liaison, ICANN Staff Liason Expert, or

*2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms*

The ICG should operate under the principles of transparency and openness,
which means, *inter*

*alia*, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally
recorded and/or

transcribed, and Statements of Interest (SOIs), to include any conflicts of
interest (COI), are

required from ICG members and shall be publicly available.

ICG members should make every effort to respect the principles outlined in

Accountability and Transparency Framework, see

principles-10jan08.pdf for further details1, taking into account that this

accountability is under full review by ICANN within the global
multistakeholder community.

If an ICG member feels that these standards are being abused, she/he should
appeal to the

chair or one of the vice-chairs. It is important to emphasize that
expressed disagreement is

not, by itself, indicative of abusive behavior. At all times, ICG members
should expect and

hold themselves to respectful articulation of any points of disagreement.
If abuse is

demonstrated, the chair of the ICG in full consultation and collaboration
with the two vice

chairs needs to consider the matter and take necessary action, as
appropriate to properly

handle the case.

ICG members should participate faithfully in the ICG’s process (e.g.,
attending meetings,

providing timely input, monitoring discussions and fully collaborating with
each other to

achieve the established objectives).

The ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable stakeholder communities
to have

appropriate time to consult on issues on which the ICG will make
substantive decisions,

including through public comment periods, where practicable and
appropriate. Public

comments received as a result of a public consultation held in relation to
the activities of the

ICG should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. In addition, the ICG
should provide its


Other best practices that can be considered include the ‘Statement on
Respectful Online Communication’, see



rationale for including or not the different comments received and, if
appropriate, how these

will be addressed in the report of the ICG.

*3. Making, Revisiting and Reconsidering ICG Decisions*

The ICG may make decisions on its public mailing list or during meetings.
Meetings are to be

conducted face-to-face or through conference calls.

Unless it is specified before a meeting that the ICG is intending to
finalize a decision during the

meeting, the decisions taken at a meeting in which one or more members are
absent should

provide 7 calendar days for those absentee members to review the decision
and provide any input

related to it; such input would be considered at the subsequent meeting
(physical, by

correspondence, or by conference call) and taken into account, if so agreed.

For cases where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made
at a given meeting

and one or more members are not present at that meeting, these members may
provide their

views to the ICG in advance in order for those views to be considered at
the scheduled meeting.

Should the decision made not be consistent with the views of those absent,
there should be

another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be
invited to provide the

ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the
report/conclusions of the ICG.

For cases where ICG proposes to finalize a decision in a scheduled meeting
and some members

are opposed to the decision reached at such meeting, there should be
another attempt(s) to find a

suitable compromise. Where that fails, member(s) who oppose should be
invited to provide the

ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the
report/conclusions of the ICG.

*4. Methodology for Making Decisions a. Administrative Decisions*

The ICG may encounter instances where it needs to select
person(s)/officer(s) as applicable for

particular tasks. For example, the ICG may need to select secretarial
support, speakers for

particular events, liaisons to particular groups or the media, or chairs or
vice chairs. In some

cases, it may become obvious through discussion that all interested ICG
members (those who

have expressed an opinion) agree on a particular selection. In those cases,
a chair, vice chair, or

designee may approve a particular selection on the basis of the obvious
agreement of all of those

who expressed an opinion.

In other cases where multiple different opinions have been expressed, a
chair, vice chair, or

designee may choose to run a vote to make the selection. The selection
should be done by a

majority vote.


*b. All Other Decisions*

This section pertains to cases when the ICG encounters instances in which
it needs to make

decisions unrelated to administrative decisions described in Section 4(a)
above; obvious

examples are the decision to send the final transition proposal to NTIA as
well as other

intermediate decisions.

The mechanism that allows the ICG to come to a final decision regarding a
certain topic is based

on the following principles:

• The decisions addressed in this section relate to the handling and
assembling of submitted

proposal(s) and not decisions related to approval/rejection of the content
of the proposals.

The ICG is meant to assemble proposals from the various communities. If
there is an issue

with the subject matter of the proposals, it is not the role of the ICG to
redraft them, but

rather to return them to the originating communty for further work with
guidance as to what

issues need to be addressed.

• The aim of the discussion should be to reach a conclusion that no ICG
member opposes.

• Reasons for opposition should be clearly stated, along with specific
alternative language

which would overcome the opposition, allowing the communities and the ICG,

possible, to understand concerns and identify compromise solutions.

• The chair will provide a time frame (to be fixed according to the
prevailing circumstances)

for a given case under consideration, for discussion and consultation
needed to address the

specific issue.

• When such time, or extension of such time, for the ICG to consider and
attempt to

accommodate objections has expired, the chair and vice chairs, in
consultation with the

members, should identify common ground relevant and appropriate to the
issue under

discussion and do their utmost to propose possible ways forward.

• It is obvious that no single member or a small minority should be allowed
to block the

decision making process. In other words a situation where a minority would
feel it needed to

block consensus should be avoided. Counter voices need to be listened to
very carefully and

a serious attempt must be made to take all concerns into account. If a full
agreement is not

possible, those still in opposition should be invited to prepare a written
explanation of their

position that should be published with the decision. See relevant
paragraphs below.

• 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 one or more communities)
and the attempts

that have been made to resolve those objections. While consensus of all

communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements
that the objection of

a majority of an operational community would preclude the ability of the
ICG to submit an


acceptable consensus proposal. In other words, 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 from one or more operational community would also
significantly limit

the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA

*c. Designation of recommendation*

Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for
designating each ICG

position as having one of the following designations:

• *Recommendation by consensus *- when no one in the group speaks against

recommendation in its last readings.

• *Recommendation *- a position where consensus could not be reached after
the matter is

sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with
interested parties

have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the
matter in order to

achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be
invited to

document their objections for the final report.

One possible example in the “Recommendation” category, *inter alia*, could
be that a

Recommendation could be considered as adopted if at most a small minority
disagree by

documenting their objection(s), the representatives of an operational
community significantly

and directly affected by the conclusion have not been overruled, and the
consensus sought was

inclusive of all ICG communities. The ICG should bear in mind that the
consensus that we are

seeking must be inclusive of all stakeholder groups: the final proposal
needs to reflect that there

is broad support for the approach from across the communities, if it is to
be an acceptable way


Minority views opposing the recommendation should be documented and
attributed in the


*The agreed and fundamental objective of the ICG is to reach at least the
Recommendation designation in favor of forwarding the Proposal for the IANA
Stewardship Transition to the NTIA.*

In order to examine and evaluate the degree of acceptability of a
Recommendation the

following method is proposed for consideration, where necessary:

i. The chair and/or vice chairs should establish a time frame for
discussion about a

particular issue. If that time frame expires and new issues are still being
raised, the chair

and/or vice chairs may extend the time frame for discussion, as the case
may be. The

above-mentioned time frame(s) should be clearly included in the summary of


ii. After the group has discussed an issue exhaustively for all issues to
have been raised,

understood and discussed, the chair and/or vice chairs make an evaluation
of the


designation and publish it for the group with a clear timescale to review.
In establishing

timescale, account should be taken of the related community discussion

iii. If any justified objection is raised concerning the designation, the
chair and/or vicechairs

should reevaluate and possibly publish an updated evaluation.

Recommendation calls should always be available to the entire ICG and, for
this reason,

should be published on the designated mailing list to ensure that all ICG
members have the

opportunity to fully participate in the process. It is the role of the
chair, in full consultation

and collaboration with vice chairs, to designate that a recommendation has
been achieved and

to announce this designation to the ICG. Members of the ICG should be given
the opportunity

to raise objections to the designation done by the chair as part of the
discussion, per the

methodology outlined above.

Any ICG member who believes that his/her contributions are being
systematically ignored or

discounted should discuss the circumstances with the ICG chair/vice chairs.
The chair, in full

consultation with vice chairs, needs to carefully examine the case with the
view to find a

satisfactory solution for the matter through all appropriate means. The
conclusions of this

discussion should be documented.

Regarding approval of draft documents, a document is considered as a stable
draft for approval,

provided that the draft is available at least 7 calendar days before the
date on which the approval

process is scheduled.

2014-09-18 20:48 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> I agree with Lynn’s point below about responsibility — I actually think
> one of the most important functions of this group is, as our charter
> states, information sharing. And helping people understand how to engage
> in the transition proposal development process is a critical component of
> that, in my opinion.
> Also, I agree with those who have said we should not have an exclusive
> list of groups that we meet with. We (and “we” can mean one or two people,
> or a handful, or the whole group) should be willing to meet and talk with
> any group that needs help understanding how to engage in the process. If
> that means meeting with ICC-BASIS or doing a webinar for ISOC chapters or
> having side meetings at ICANN51, we should do as many of those things as
> we can accommodate. There are 30 of us and we should share the workload,
> just as we’ve been doing with our other work. And with my IETF hat on,
> there are plenty of people I could further delegate to who are very
> capable of explaining the IETF process and how to participate in our
> IANAPLAN working group process, and I would hope that we could leverage
> them as well.
> We started this conversation about side meetings with the GAC and ALAC
> because those groups pro-actively reached out to us and said “I’d like to
> hear from you." If we need to proactively do outreach to other groups —
> ccNSO? CWG? gNSO? RIRs? who else? — to see if they want to talk, we should
> do it. Patrik, Mohamed, and I can work on that outreach for ICANN51 if
> people want it and can help with providing appropriate contacts.
> I also wanted to make clear that the proposed GAC and ALAC side meetings
> will be public (and likely translated into a few languages at least). So
> there would be nothing other than scheduling conflicts preventing anyone
> from attending or tuning in.
> Alissa
> On 9/18/14, 4:56 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at lstamour.org> wrote:
> >Not all communities have the same norms, expectations, or culture; nor
> >are they necessarily working to the ones we are.   I believe we have a
> >responsibility to make this process as accessible, inclusive, and
> >understandable as possible.  In other words, to do whatever we can to
> >minimize barriers to participation or support.  Dialogue in more focused
> >groups can be very beneficial to all, as we have just seen in our own G11
> >group on "consensus".
> >
> >I strongly support Martin and Manal's points.  Maybe those that are more
> >reluctant could expound a bit?
> >
> >Best,
> >Lynn
> >
> >On Sep 18, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Joe is obviously a lot harder touch than me:  I have a lot of sympathy
> >>for stakeholders in and outside the ICANN environment and the barriers
> >>that they can confront in engaging in processes.  I also think that the
> >>non-operational communities probably do need to understand how to engage
> >>and we need to understand what their concerns are (and any barriers to
> >>their engagement).  So these meetings should not be a chore but an
> >>opportunity for us to make sure that what we receive on 15 January is in
> >>good shape.
> >>
> >> So I’d be sympathetic to GAC and to ALAC in the ICANN meeting.
> >>
> >> I’m less concerned about the operational communities which are all well
> >>represented on the ICG.  But even here, dialogue with the
> >>cross-community working group has to be a useful part of the process.
> >>
> >> There will be a bit of an issue if we fail to communicate information
> >>fairly – a question answered in one group might also be relevant for
> >>another group.  I do not see this as irresolvable – we should keep a
> >>note of questions and responses and either publish a FAQ or spend some
> >>time at the open session bringing everyone up to the same place.
> >>
> >> Then we have the post RfP discussions:  surely a new environment and
> >>again I think we will need to be generous with our time so that we
> >>understand what people are saying and where concerns lie.  We need to
> >>keep our dialogue open throughout the whole process so that we do not
> >>get caught out by issues when we think we’ve sewn a credible package
> >>together.
> >>
> >> Of course we do not all need to cover every stakeholder engagement
> >>opportunity!
> >>
> >> Hope this helps
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> >>[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> >> Sent: 18 September 2014 12:04
> >> To: internal-cg at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Extended session in Los Angeles
> >>
> >> Patrik, colleagues:
> >>
> >> Based on Heather's comments and my experience interacting with a number
> >>of governments not accustomed to the multistakeholder process in the Net
> >>Mundial meeting, I think there may be a justification for a separate
> >>meeting with GAC...  As much as I would prefer not to have such a
> >>separate meeting, I am not sure that they would actively participate in
> >>the extended forum your reference... We should be very specific however
> >>that is would be a one time accommodation to assist in acclimation to
> >>the process.
> >>
> >> On the forum session, perhaps we could set aside 45 minutes as Q&A with
> >>communities?
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/18/2014 6:29 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Alice has checked and confirmed we could extend the time for the open
> >>session in Los Angeles with 30 minutes, to 120 minutes.
> >>
> >> The time is as follows (timezone local time in Los Angeles):
> >>
> >> Thursday, 16 October.
> >> Start time: 10:00
> >> End time: 12:00
> >>
> >> I will come back with an updated proposal for agenda.
> >>
> >>    Patrik
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> 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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Internal-cg mailing list
> >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/20140918/427f48fa/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list