July 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Reminder: Secretariat feedback due July 31, 20:00 UTC
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

Please respond on the “ICG Secretariat” thread started by Adiel. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-July/000493.html Alissa

1 0

PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP
by Alice Jansen July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt<http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST - 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). Please note that we will have interpreting services at the meeting. Links to the respective languages are available below: * English - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u * French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u * Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u * Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u * Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u * Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u * Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en>. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August - COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request - kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

1 0

Confirmed: Next F2F meeting Sept 6
by Alissa Cooper July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

All, We are confirmed to meet face-to-face all day on September 6 in Istanbul. We have a room and translation service available. I suggest starting at 9:00 and concluding at 17:30. Either myself or the ICANN staff will follow up with logistical information shortly. I will follow up about meeting in October in a separate email. Alissa

2 1

Timeline
by Russ Housley July 30, 2014

July 30, 2014

I've been volunteered to lead the session on timeline. I put this together based on the mail list traffic. Please tell me now if I missed something. Russ

13 20

Reminder: Chair structure poll
by Alissa Cooper July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

This is a reminder to complete the chair structure poll if you have not already (deadline is July 30 at 20:00 UTC): http://tinyurl.com/pgufgjh I realize some folks find this controversial, but we have only 11 responses so far out of 30 and it would be good to get more complete information about the group’s views on this topic. Thanks, Alissa On 7/25/14, 1:46 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >I have taken Joe’s suggestion and created a poll concerning chair >structure [1]: > >http://tinyurl.com/pgufgjh > >I suggest we set a deadline of July 30 at 20:00 UTC for people to respond >to the poll. After that, we can create another poll for actually selecting >people, or take an email vote, or work it out by some other mechanism that >we can figure out next week. > >The responses to the chair structure poll will be publicly visible here >[2]: http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6 > >I appreciate that we are still figuring out the details of our processes >and consensus mechanisms. We did have support for the three co-chair >structure in London, and now we appear to have some support for other >models, so I think in this bootstrapping phase we should be at least a bit >flexible and take a little more time to determine a structure that has >broad support. I also recognize that we’ve had a variety of deadlines >suggested for different aspects of this chair selection issue, but my >sense from the list discussion is that resolving this structure question >mid-next-week and the actual personnel selection shortly thereafter will >work while I continue as interim chair. > >Please fill out the chair structure poll by July 30 at 20:00 UTC and we’ll >take it from there. > >Thanks, >Alissa > >[1] Full URL is here (I used tinyurl to avoid line-break problems): >https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1gngAa7fjboC9y2zdKs7rmH9H08RLyW7Qv4hE1Dj0D >2 >Y/viewform > >[2] Full URL: >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xJkGxBRu6BBPX9XSTCRQNblNG7QEE-RllG >R >9ZCvvY8g/edit#gid=1350424468 > > >On 7/25/14, 9:53 AM, "Jon Nevett" <jon(a)donuts.co> wrote: > >>I'm sure that the ICANN staff folks could do it if we agree on the >>questions to ask and that the exercise is worthwhile. Best, jon >> >> >> >>On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:41 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> >>wrote: >> >>> While I have used doodle I have not set one up, so i would invite >>>anyone so inclined to go forth and doodle. I would however remind >>>everyone that we have a 2 stage question: >>> >>> 1. Composition of Chairs - Three co-chairs or Chair/Alternate+ >>>volunteers >>> 2. Who will serve. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Joe >>> On 7/25/2014 8:45 AM, Jon Nevett wrote: >>>> Joe: >>>> >>>> In various ICANN fora, we have used Doodle polls to determine >>>>substantive issues in addition to scheduling meetings. It's a >>>>relatively quick way to get a sense of the group and it might be >>>>appropriate in this situation. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:34 AM, joseph alhadeff >>>><joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Colleagues: >>>>> >>>>> Alissa is already interim chair, as of London. I assume she has been >>>>>somewhat silent on the topic because of what might be considered a >>>>>conflict of interest. >>>>> >>>>> One point was clear in London however, the Chair does not determine >>>>>unilaterally what is consensus except for the administrative matters >>>>>related to running meetings. Where no consensus emerges, the Chair >>>>>leads a process of coming to consensus. That is different than >>>>>determining consensus. Thus, I would have to take exception to >>>>>Patrik's solution of the appointment of one chair resolves the process >>>>>issue. Furthermore, in this case it might be difficult for the >>>>>Interim Chair to run the process of consensus related to her possibly >>>>>becoming chair... >>>>> >>>>> I would however suggest, that each of us bears a participatory >>>>>responsibility. If we don't agree with a proposal we must step >>>>>forward with opposing or differing views. Those views need to be made >>>>>known at the earliest opportunity. If this constructive participation >>>>>does not emerge then our mission is doomed from the outset. My >>>>>suggestion would be that each decision point provide a fixed time, not >>>>>less than a week, for consultation. With the exception of consensus >>>>>on the proposals, which should be more carefully judged, each proposal >>>>>would then achieve consensus by having a preponderance of the >>>>>communities entitled to vote (each of the separate groups identified >>>>>in Patrik's list, excluding liaisons) support it. Comments may also >>>>>suggest the need for more time to consult on the decision or raise the >>>>>importance of the issue to justify a more deliberative process. I am >>>>>fine with the interim chair or secretariat acting as the collection >>>>>point of views, but they should also be copied to the list for >>>>>transparency. For the Chair function, it might be best to keep posting >>>>>to the list. >>>>> >>>>> I know folks wanted to avoid levels of bureaucracy, but I prefer >>>>>established process to endless cycles of review with no potential to >>>>>conclude... Equally happy to entertain other proposals. >>>>> >>>>> Jean-Jacques - you indicated you were consulting with colleagues, can >>>>>you say when the group will provide an opinion? Open-ended timelines >>>>>will not help us develop efficient process or workflows. >>>>> >>>>> Best- >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/25/2014 7:17 AM, WUKnoben wrote: >>>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> I acknowledge the different views on >>>>>> 1. discussing and solving more principle questions about role and >>>>>>number of (co-) chairs and >>>>>> 2. continuing the work of the ICG where the chair shall be given a >>>>>>focal role on taking initiatives and organization >>>>>> >>>>>> Both seems equally necessary. In this regard I suggest to appoint >>>>>>Alissa as Interim Chair with chairperson authorization as described >>>>>>by Patrik until we've finished the principle questions and a >>>>>>following (co-) chair selection. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:32 AM >>>>>> To: ICG Internal >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of >>>>>>ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> this is to inform you that the ALAC will be sending its observations >>>>>>shortly, not only on the structure of the Coordination Group, but >>>>>>also on other matters of importance. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meantime, the ALAC respectfully requests that decisions >>>>>>concerning the roles of individual members not be taken before some >>>>>>questions of principle have been adequately addressed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>>>> De: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark(a)accan.org.au> >>>>>> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson(a)apnic.net>, "Patrik Fältström" >>>>>><paf(a)frobbit.se> >>>>>> Cc: "ICG Internal" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >>>>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 25 Juillet 2014 08:45:51 >>>>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of >>>>>>ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Patrik, on those conditions, I also support Alissa's >>>>>>appointment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Narelle Clark >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>>>>[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson >>>>>> Sent: Friday, 25 July 2014 4:42 PM >>>>>> To: Patrik Fältström >>>>>> Cc: ICG Internal >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of >>>>>>ICG >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Patrik, I support. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25 Jul 2014, at 4:40 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I hereby take the initiative to ask for consensus for appointment >>>>>>>of Alissa Cooper as the chair of ICG. This does not imply anything >>>>>>>regarding whether we should have one or more chairs, one chair and >>>>>>>zero of more alternate chairs, status of the document by Joseph etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It just, if it passes, gives the power to Alissa to be able to >>>>>>>define when we have consensus in ICG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If someone OBJECTS to Alissa being appointed as a chair, that >>>>>>>objection should be sent to this list no later than 1800 UTC on >>>>>>>Monday July 28. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are zero objections on Monday July 28 at 1800 UTC I find >>>>>>>Alissa Cooper be appointed as the chair of ICG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Main reason for me to ask for this (which anyone can object to as >>>>>>>you see above) is that I feel we need someone being "the chair" to >>>>>>>even be able to reach consensus on the document that define what the >>>>>>>role of the chair is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So this call is to bootstrap our processes. Nothing more, nothing >>>>>>>less. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patrik Fältström >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Internal-cg mailing list >>Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

URGENT, suggested poll.
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

Good morning Alissa, Hello Colleagues, The Chair of the ALAC has asked me to bring to your attention the following: 1) In his recent message to this list, Olivier pointed out that "The ALAC considers it essential to uphold the decision taken in London to appoint 3 Co-Chairs, the process of which cannot be put to fault". There has not yet been a response or reply to this letter. 2) The poll your have set up regarding the leadership structure proposes several alternatives, but is based on a makeshift process following someone's ad hoc suggestion: this cannot in any way have the same standing as the UNANIMOUS decision of the CG in London to have 3 Co-Chairs. In careful consideration of the above, the ALAC respectfully requests that the decision taken in London about the leadership structure be acted upon without delay, and that the proposed poll be discontinued. It is the sincere hope of the ALAC that the Coordination Group will take this opportunity to fully implement the principles of diversity, balance and fairness, so as to create a truly global trust regarding its membership and confidence in its processes. Thank you. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.

8 7

Re: [Internal-cg] Room availability for Sept meeting
by Alissa Cooper July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

I just got word that we should know for sure about Sept 6 room availability by tomorrow, and that it’s looking likely that a room will be available. So let’s table this discussion until tomorrow unless anyone feels like they absolutely cannot wait one more day. Thanks, Alissa On 7/28/14, 8:30 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: >The ICANN staff has been busily trying to find a place for us to meet in >Istanbul, and this is proving rather difficult. > >Currently, the only day when there is both a room available in which we >can meet and when the translation service is available is Friday, >September 5, which is the last day of the IGF. The ICANN staff are still >investigating possibilities for September 6, but there are public holidays >in Turkey this week, which means it may take a few more days before we >have any more information about room availability for September 6. (On >Sept 1 there is room availability but the translation service is not >available — I do not think we can meet without translation, but if you >disagree, please say so.) > >At this point I think we have three options: > >1. Decide that we will not meet in Istanbul. >With this option, people who need to urgently make travel arrangements for >the IGF can do so immediately. The ICANN staff is still checking on room >availability in Los Angeles around the ICANN 51 meeting time, so we could >aim to schedule our next face-to-face meeting around ICANN 51 by the end >of this week or early next week (and perhaps schedule a couple of >conference calls between now and then as well). We could also try to put >together an informal “get to know each other” gathering in Istanbul even >if we don’t meet formally. > >2. Decide that we will meet on September 5. >Some ICG participants will certainly have conflicts at various points >during the day on September 5, but we could meet anyway, or perhaps meet >for part of the day. There is a plenary session about IANA on the IGF >schedule from 9:30 to 11:00 that day; we could plan to meet from 11:30 to >18:00, for example. I have also reached out to a contact involved with the >IGF organizing to see if that IANA session could be moved to a different >day so that the ICG could meet for the full day, and she is checking on >that. Note: The room that is available to us on September 5 is near the >IGF venue (it’s at the Grand Hyatt), but not at the IGF venue, so people >transferring back and forth between the two venues will need a little bit >of time to do that. > >3. Wait until we get more information about September 6 to decide. >Hopefully by the end of this week we will know more about room >availability on September 6, so we could wait for that information before >deciding. > >What are your thoughts about how to proceed? Do people have drop-dead >dates by which they absolutely must book their travel? > >Thanks, >Alissa > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

2 1

Room availability for Sept meeting
by Alissa Cooper July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

The ICANN staff has been busily trying to find a place for us to meet in Istanbul, and this is proving rather difficult. Currently, the only day when there is both a room available in which we can meet and when the translation service is available is Friday, September 5, which is the last day of the IGF. The ICANN staff are still investigating possibilities for September 6, but there are public holidays in Turkey this week, which means it may take a few more days before we have any more information about room availability for September 6. (On Sept 1 there is room availability but the translation service is not available — I do not think we can meet without translation, but if you disagree, please say so.) At this point I think we have three options: 1. Decide that we will not meet in Istanbul. With this option, people who need to urgently make travel arrangements for the IGF can do so immediately. The ICANN staff is still checking on room availability in Los Angeles around the ICANN 51 meeting time, so we could aim to schedule our next face-to-face meeting around ICANN 51 by the end of this week or early next week (and perhaps schedule a couple of conference calls between now and then as well). We could also try to put together an informal “get to know each other” gathering in Istanbul even if we don’t meet formally. 2. Decide that we will meet on September 5. Some ICG participants will certainly have conflicts at various points during the day on September 5, but we could meet anyway, or perhaps meet for part of the day. There is a plenary session about IANA on the IGF schedule from 9:30 to 11:00 that day; we could plan to meet from 11:30 to 18:00, for example. I have also reached out to a contact involved with the IGF organizing to see if that IANA session could be moved to a different day so that the ICG could meet for the full day, and she is checking on that. Note: The room that is available to us on September 5 is near the IGF venue (it’s at the Grand Hyatt), but not at the IGF venue, so people transferring back and forth between the two venues will need a little bit of time to do that. 3. Wait until we get more information about September 6 to decide. Hopefully by the end of this week we will know more about room availability on September 6, so we could wait for that information before deciding. What are your thoughts about how to proceed? Do people have drop-dead dates by which they absolutely must book their travel? Thanks, Alissa

2 1

Message to the Members of the Coordination Group.
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

Dear Colleagues, the Chair of the ALAC has asked me to convey the following message to the Members of the Coordination Group. BEGIN QUOTE Dear Members of the Coordination Group, The ALAC is pleased with the rapid formation of the Coordination Group (CG) and the clear indication, during its initial meeting in London, that this Group is keen to achieve progress and present viable recommendations, all within a specific timeline. The following represents the ALAC’s views on key structural and leadership aspects of the CG: (1) COMPOSITION OF THE CG The Transfer of the IANA Functions’ Stewardship, as initiated by the US Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is about divesting US Government oversight and transferring its responsibility to the GLOBAL Internet Community. Yet, the current composition of the CG, which is tasked with coordinating the development of the transfer proposal, is such that it already conveys the wrong message with regards to diversity and geographic balance: - 12 members come from the single region of North America, including 11 of US citizenship; - Business interests are widely represented in various guises; and - The global Internet user/non-operational stakeholders are under-represented. Given that this unbalanced composition of the CG is difficult to correct at this juncture, it is crucial that the formation of the leadership team be done with care and sensitivity to the diversity of the global multistakeholder Internet Community. The CG’s actions are currently being followed with some concern, and will remain under scrutiny. (2) LEADERSHIP TEAM OF THE CG Appointment of an Interim Chair: The ALAC is aware of the importance of having an effective Interim Chair to facilitate the initial organizational aspects of the CG, including the process of selecting the CG’s Leadership Team. We support the consensus call to appoint Alissa Cooper as the Interim Chair, as we view her facilitation of the London meeting to have been excellent. Formation of the Leadership Team: The ALAC considers it essential to uphold the decision taken in London to appoint 3 Co-Chairs, the process of which cannot be put to fault. The selection of the Leadership Team should also be taken as an opportunity to restore its desirable balance, and to improve the image that the CG projects to the world in terms of equal treatment and diversity. Towards this end, individuals to be selected as Co-Chairs must represent different regions and citizenships, and should not favour, or be seen to favour, businesses or entities that are already strongly represented in the Coordination Group. While ensuring its efficiency, the CG must also take into account the expectations of the global multistakeholder communities outside the Coordination Group. On behalf of the ALAC, I wish you every success in the accomplishment of your important task. Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC. END OF QUOTE. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.

2 1

How to define consensus in ICG?
by Patrik Fältström July 28, 2014

July 28, 2014

I am concerned we have issues here and I would like to propose the following as a boot strap mechanism to be able to move forward. First, this proposal is based on upon the fact we do have one and only one chair. We could have alternates as well, but the special role of the chair I here define can only be passed to an alternate on explicit call by the chair. This mechanism could work also with more than one person having the same "power", and in that case all individuals are to fall into the category "chair" in the text below. Second, it is also based upon the fact that although we are representing and to some degree liaisons between ICG and whatever community that appointed us, we are all as individuals collectively responsible for ensuring ICG do deliver whatever we are to deliver. As such we as individual must be able to use the trust we have had to make some decisions without going back to our respective consensus processes for every single decision. If nothing else it is important to *now* go back to understand where the red lines are, and what we are allowed to make decisions on and not without explicitly going back. With these basis, I suggest the following. We have two different kinds of issues to decide upon: A. The non-substantial issues that might has to do with how we work, what tools and processes we use to reach certain goals and what not. B. The substantial issues that none of us can say anything about without ensuring some consensus process has come to some conclusion. Of course there is a large gray area between A and B. But my point is that we do have a large set of issues that are of type A. And personally, I think some of the issues we have today not been able to reach consensus on are of type A. I.e. we SHOULD as individuals given we are appointed be able to reach consensus. 1. How to reach consensus on issues of type A Issues of type A are by the chair announced to this mailing list. The proposals and choices are clearly defined. The chair give a deadline at which point choices should have been filed. The chair can decide wether choices should be sent to the list, to the chair personally or whether some online poll should be used. In all cases the result of the poll, including who have what input, should be presented to this list. The minimum time between the call from the chair and close of the poll is "one business day". Normal time should be "three business days". Business day is Mon-Fri minus travel days, holidays etc...but ultimately we trust our chair to make the right decision here. Possible responses can part from selection of choice, whether one agree or not, be to call this not to be of category A, but instead category B and that way ask for extended evaluation. Non-responses is to be treated as "not against the proposal", but should in the summary be reported as a separate category. At the end of the poll, the chair draw conclusions, and present the consensus based conclusion to this list. Summary: Chair clearly let on this list know what issue there is, and ask for feedback no later than a certain point in time. Non-responses are to be treated as "not against". Shortest time for the feedback one day. Chair draw and present conclusions. 2. How to reach consensus on issues of type B Issues of type B are by the chair announced to this mailing list. Substantive matters must be backed by arguments based on the result from the consensus based processes in the respective communities. I.e. it is for these matters not ourselves as individuals that makes the call, but we are coordinating and summarizing what the communities do think about a specific issues. ICG as a whole is also to write explicit reasons for various conclusions, specifically when the consensus is not a unanimous conclusion, or when feedback is completely missing from a certain category of communities. Exactly how to reach consensus on these matters, and how to do the coordination, outreach, repeated outreach when we have lack of information, are things we probably have to invent more or less on the fly when we move forward, but I do hope that all of these calls are decisions on type A. As you can see, I want us to first of all: a. Agree on us having "at least a chair, if not chair plus alternates" b. Agree on who is the chair c. Agree the whole point of having a chair is that we trust the chair be responsible for identifying Type A issues, and move forward I now leave this open ended as we do not even know today how to reach consensus on some proposal like this. :-) That said, I feel we are close to consensus on (a), and also (b) as I have not seen anyone oppose Alissa be our chair. Patrik

6 7