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

Public session at ICANN 51?
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

I know you’re all getting tired of emails from me, but I have a question (well, a few questions) … Should the ICG host a public session at ICANN 51, to provide a status update and hear from the community? (My answer: yes.) How long should the session be? 90 minutes? I’m asking now because we need to start working with the ICANN 51 agenda folks if we want to make it happen. Thanks, Alissa

16 27

Meetings at ICANN in L.A. -- input requested
by Patrik Fältström Sept. 15, 2014

Sept. 15, 2014

All, After exploring the possibilities, looking at the schedule etc, the current status of meetings in L.A. is as follows. Please note the question regarding silent observers below!! Input is appreciated. Constituency Travel have just been informed about the meeting Friday October 17, so those of you that do have funding from ICANN in one way or another will get your travel changed. Thursday October 16 10:30 - 12:00 Public discussion There will be interpretation to all UN languages. We are looking at how to place chairs etc in the room. The consensus I saw on this list was that all ICG members in L.A. should be on the stage (whatever that means), and I am looking at alternatives together with Meeting Team on how to accommodate that. Friday October 17 09:00 - 17:30 Working Session There will be interpretation to all UN languages. Seating will be in a U-shaped table. We do have space for max 80 silent observers. Question: Should we allow silent observers? Patrik

19 21

Fwd: RFP - publishable draft?
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 1, 2014

Sept. 1, 2014

Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Off list: I've lost a bit of the thread... Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for? Joe On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear All, > Dear Alissa > what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. > What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of > editorial nature but essential. > There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. > I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being > published as draft . > I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have > proposed are essebntial. > However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have > no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed > by me are still valid and to be considered. > I have informed in different manner > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson(a)apnic.net>: > > I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need >> to be perfected before we do that. >> >> For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, >> and happy for these to be included >> >> thanks >> >> Paul. >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg(a)apnic.net> >> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 >> <%2B61%207%203858%203100> >> >> See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Milton, >> > Thank you again for yr analysis >> > Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion >> > Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. >> > By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about >> that group? >> > tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you >> > Kavouss >> > >> > >> > 2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir(a)mbash.net>: >> > After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light >> coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates . >> > >> > We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move >> ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Mohamed >> > >> > On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Manal >> >> , >> >> I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the >> adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " >> >> I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the >> activities . >> >> This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just >> it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on >> this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth >> >> Tks >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>: >> >> This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause >> “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 >> things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work >> through the operational communities processes: >> >> >> >> - to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down >> decision-making authority, and >> >> >> >> - to make sure their contributions are considered early >> within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party >> >> >> >> Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it >> does not serve the purpose of the first bullet .. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM >> >> To: Milton L Mueller >> >> >> >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Milton, >> >> >> >> Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most >> knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message. >> >> >> >> Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our >> actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we >> undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective >> LIGHT. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to >> coordination without any qualification. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu>: >> >> >> >> My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Would prefer to keep “light” in there. >> >> >> >> OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments >> >> >> >> OK to replace “direct” with “forward” >> >> >> >> OK to replace “encourages” with “urges” >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> >> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor >> >> >> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >> >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >> >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM >> >> To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg >> >> >> >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue >> word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone >> that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English >> speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> >> Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 >> >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Alissa, >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text >> consistent with each other >> >> >> >> See attachment >> >> >> >> Kavouss the l >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < >> daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net>: >> >> >> >> On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> > ... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having >> the >> >> > secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about >> its >> >> > existence) by Sept 1? >> >> >> >> I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections. >> >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

6 11

f2f Meeting ,06 Sept. ; AGENDA and Time Management
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 31, 2014

Aug. 31, 2014

Dear Alissa ,Dear Vice Chairs, Dear All We are approaching f2f meeting to be held on 06 September in Istanbul immediately after IGF-9 I might have overlooked some correspondence ,however, I do not find the Agenda of the meeting nor any time mangement plan for that one day meeting As you know that would be the first f2f meeing that ALL 30 ICG MEMBERS ( NOT PARTICIPANTS) would hopefully attend,even though we do not have any confirmation from attendees The duration of the meeting is one day from 8 to ....hours with a heavy Agenda that I have missed .if it is published. >From legally point of view and to fully follow procedure ,we need to to establish a draft Agenda See Attachment If there was a draft agenda that I did miss, please kindly amend that accordingly. Finally, May I request that a social event limited to ICG MEMBERS ONLY plus few invitees from ICANN Mangement be studied with a view that we get together to freely and socially discuss witjh each other and further enhance our relation and freindship. e.g. a cocktail on 06 September after our meeting Regards Kavouss

1 0

Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Registration
by Paul Wilson Aug. 31, 2014

Aug. 31, 2014

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Chengetai Masango <cmasango(a)unog.ch> > Subject: [IGFmaglist] Registration > Date: 31 August 2014 7:43:07 pm AEST > To: 'MAG-public' <Igfmaglist(a)intgovforum.org> > Reply-To: <cmasango(a)unog.ch> > > Dear All, > > Please encourage your constituents to come and register today (Sunday) or first thing tomorrow (Monday) to avoid long lines and congestion. > > The registration desks are open until 8pm today and tomorrow. > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist(a)intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 30, 2014

Aug. 30, 2014

Dear Mohammed Thank you very much for reply. I did not ask you to direct any message to any individual. I did send my comments relating to RFP I repeat RFP two times to every one but no further development. In the draft procedure it is mentioned that if views of the minority is not taken into account they have to discuss that with chairs and Vice chairs On that approach I asked you to advise why my comments relating to the Draft RFP that I sent to all as Rev 2 of my comment was not taken into account In the V14 there are legal inconsistencies which should be removed Tks Kavouss 2014-08-30 12:25 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir(a)mbash.net>: > Dear Kavous, > > We encourage you to discuss future document updates and comments in the > ICG mailing list, in the mailing list all members discuss and express their > views, the the document editor/focal point is monitoring the discussions > and comments and he/she will consider the opinions expressed in his/her > update of the documents. > > We can't as (chairs) direct or instruct document editors/focal points or > ICG members to accept nor reject specific comments, although as ICG > (members) individually each one of us are can give their own opinions which > are expressed in the ICG mailing list as well. > > Have a good weekend > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > On 29 Aug 2014, at 15:48, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear All, > I have sent my comments to that doc. as contained in REV 2 ,as hereby > attached . > I sincerely request you to take that into account .I need a clear reply > from the ICG management Team ob the matter > Regards > Kavouss > > <ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),REV 2 KA.doc> > >

1 0

RFP - publishable draft?
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 30, 2014

Aug. 30, 2014

In the RFP v14-alc (attached and in dropbox, with track changes both on and off), I’ve incorporate the suggestion made by Jean-Jacques, as amended by Milton. I’ve added the footnote providing the definition of IANA and gone through to change “IANA” to “IANA functions operator” where appropriate, as suggested by Daniel. I split Section V into two separate sections, one for implications and one for NTIA requirements, as suggested by Lynn. I clearly marked this document as a draft. I did some editorial clean-up and removed the comments as well (I realize there may still be some discussion ongoing related to some of the comments, but it sounded on the call as if those were not blocking the publication of the draft). I have only seen agreement (or silence) on the list concerning the above changes, so I’m thinking this version might be ready to publish as a stable draft prior to the IGF. The only item missing is the link to the centralized information portal, which the secretariat is working on. Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1? Thanks, Alissa

9 16

Re: [Internal-cg] Session at ICANN-51
by Joe Alhadeff Aug. 29, 2014

Aug. 29, 2014

will there be speakers on behalf of ICG as a whole or just their constituencies? ----- Original Message ----- From: paf(a)frobbit.se To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Friday, August 8, 2014 10:04:23 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [Internal-cg] Session at ICANN-51 I got one comment (thanks Manal) and based on that I have submitted the following. > * Session title; Community Discussion with the ICG > * Brief session overview (extensive session overview and agenda > details can be provided closer to the date) The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will, at the ICANN51 meeting in Los Angeles, have a discussion with the community on various aspects of the transition. The schedule for the session is as follows: - 15 min update from ICG - 30 min update from coordinated proposals, 5 min. each. To plan the session accordingly and accommodate max number of requests, groups are required to make themselves known to the ICG in advance, highlighting their coordination activities and sending in proposals and/or material they intend to discuss - 45 minutes open microphone where issues are brought up by individuals from the floor and/or remote participants > * Number of attendees ( e.g. 150, 300, 500+) 500+ > * Date, time and duration (From Alice: "based on our experience, I > suggest holding the session on Wednesday as this timeframe will allow > communities to hold discussions in their respective meetings prior to > the session") Wednesday or Thursday Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

20 68

Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process
by Joe Alhadeff Aug. 29, 2014

Aug. 29, 2014

Alissa: Are liaisons participants but not members? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: alissa(a)cooperw.in To: mnuduma(a)yahoo.com, martin.boyle(a)nominet.org.uk, internal-cg(a)icann.org Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:56:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process Mary, Martin, all, I would be fine to replace “small minority” with “minority.” That is, if a minority of any size — from 1 to 14 ICG reps — cannot have its objections accommodated after extended discussion, those objections should be documented and the group should move on. I would resist defining “small” in any other way, since again our numeric representation in the group is arbitrary and has unclear meaning of its own. But if your request is that the ICG cannot progress a document that has an objection from any minority, or from an operational community minority — that, I believe, is not workable. That allows 1 or more ICG reps to prevent the ICG’s work from going forward. Specifically, it puts us in a situation where rather than sending a final proposal to NTIA with a fully explained objection from a minority, we would not be able to send anything at all. I think we have to be able to send something, even if all the IETF reps object, or all the numbering reps, or all the ccTLD reps, or all the naming reps, or any or all reps from another constituency. Sending nothing means that NTIA has to make a judgment of its own of whatever state our process ends in, rather than us informing them of the end state. I don’t see how the former is preferable to the latter. Also, I was the one who did the “member”/“participant” switch — it seems quite strange to me to consider ourselves members since this is not a membership organization — but it’s obviously confusing so I’m happy for the term “members” to be used. Alissa On 8/27/14, 4:26 AM, "mnuduma(a)yahoo.com" <mnuduma(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >All >I am sorry, if I missed some views or threads. >I have same concerns as raised by Martin. A mere footnote of a minority >objections, say 10% or whatever number that may be, can hardly be >acceptable on substantive issues by those on that side of the divide. I >think ICG should strive at having consensus in all issues and go to >voting as a last resort, and where it becomes impossible to reach, the >minority view should form part of the main report/proposal, including the >rationale for the objections. I am being curious here: why have we >changed "members" to 'Participants', any compelling reasons? >Mary Uduma > >Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN > >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk> >Sender: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:30:22 >To: Alissa Cooper<alissa(a)cooperw.in>; >Internal-cg(a)icann.org<internal-cg(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process > >Hi Alissa, > >Thanks for your revised text. > >I still have concerns over minority views where a group is seriously >impacted by the decision. I've noted before that, for the names part of >the equation, the ccTLD or the GNSO community could be in a significant >minority. As a result, any recommendation coloured by a footnote >objection from that community would hardly be a solution. > >That obviously depends on what we mean by small minority (less than 10% >would meet my concerns, but might not meet concerns of others). > >I've made a few changes that try to clarify the meaning of the text. >However, I'm bemused by the (partial) change from the term "members" to >"participants." I can see that we do not want to non-participants to be >dominant in the committee for counting purposes, but we do not spell the >consequences out. > >Best > >Martin > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >Sent: 27 August 2014 00:03 >To: Internal-cg(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process > >I made a small change to at the bottom of page 1 in v4 to explain the >role of liaisons. > >I haven’t seen any responses to the other changes, explained in my note >below. Any outstanding objections to the v4 version? > >Thanks, >Alissa > >On 8/21/14, 5:13 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>I have attached and uploaded to Dropbox a v4 that addresses my >>remaining concerns with the consensus document. It is based on the v3 >>that was uploaded by Paul earlier this week. Here is a summary of the >>changes and my rationales for them: >> >>1) Personnel decisions vs. All other decisions In section 4 I have >>created two subsections, one about personnel decisions and one about >>all other decisions. I have removed the language about “substantive” >>and “non-substantive” because it wasn’t clear to me what it meant and I >>think the actual meaningful distinction is personnel vs. >>non-personnel decisions. That is, for personnel decisions I think >>voting and going with the majority winner is fine; for all other >>decisions I do not think we should vote. >> >>As I mentioned in the chat window on the call, I don’t see how we can >>credibly vote on document approvals and other non-personnel matters >>since our numbers in terms of representation of constituencies (which >>themselves can be sliced and diced many different ways) are arbitrary. >> >>2) Hold-out problem >>As I stated before I was concerned about the language in the document >>that required all of the operational community representatives (or >>“IANA >>customers”) to be satisfied with every decision, because I believe this >>would allow one group to prevent the full ICG from moving forward. From >>my perspective the important parts are (i) that we spend sufficient >>time trying to accommodate objections, and (ii) that we document >>objections that cannot be accommodated. As long as we put in a serious >>effort at accommodation and objectors can explain in as much detail as >>they like why they object, I don’t think any individual or group should >>have the power to prevent our process from moving forward or to prevent >>us from sending a proposal to NTIA. I have therefore removed the >>language about satisfying all IANA customers. >> >>3) Principles >>I thought the second set of principles was clearer than the first, so I >>have kept the second and deleted the first. I do not believe we can put >>a numeric figure on “rough consensus” for the same reason that we >>should not be voting, and the term “rough consensus” does not otherwise >>appear in the document, so I removed the 4/5 requirement as well. >> >>4) Methodology >>I have made a number of suggestions to the methodology section. I >>propose as a first step that the chair/co-chairs set a time frame for >>discussion, which can be extended if necessary. I suggest that >>re-evaluation of a published designation only occur in light of serious >>objections to the designation — this should be an exceptional >>circumstance. I removed the notion that the designation would continue >>to be updated until everyone agrees with it because I don’t understand >>how that process would ever terminate. And I added more detail about the >>nature of polls. >> >>5) Appeal >>I removed the language about the ability for any participant to appeal >>a designation — again, I don’t understand how a decision-making process >>would terminate if there can be endless appeals, and if we go down the >>path of documenting objections, I don’t think this is necessary. >> >>6) Decision-making venues >>I think we should be able to make decisions on the mailing list >>(especially easy ones :-)) in addition to during meetings, so I added >>some words to that effect. >> >>7) Editorial >>I did a bunch of editorial clean-up. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>Alissa >> >> >>On 8/20/14, 11:12 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> wrote: >> >>>Thanks Wolf-Ulrich and apologies for my late reply .. >>>I was already not fully satisfied with the language I suggested and >>>was open for better language .. >>>But in the absence of any, I'm ok with reverting back to the original >>>text .. >>>Thanks again for the heads up .. >>>Kind Regards >>>--Manal >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] >>>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:43 PM >>>To: Manal Ismail; Lynn St.Amour; Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>> >>>Thanks Manal, >>> >>>I think we starting a bit mixing between charter related items and >>>those items related to these draft guidelines. The ICG role must >>>definitely be fixed in the charter. What is expressed in the >>>guidelines can per se only work within the limited role of the ICG. >>>Whether it's "decision making" >>>or "conclusion" - this is just wording and needs common understanding. >>>But for me "administrative" decision making looks a bit confusing as >>>it could imply additional ICG guidelines for "other" decision making. >>>So for the latest draft version (v3) coming up I took the liberty, not >>>to accept your amendments in this respect. >>> >>>Best regards >>> >>>Wolf-Ulrich >>> >>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>From: Manal Ismail >>>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:22 PM >>>To: Lynn St.Amour ; Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>> >>>I fully agree with Lynn that, within our task of >>>coordinating/assimilating proposals, we hopefully don't have major >>>autonomous decisions to make .. and if they exist, I believe, we >>>should try to revert back to the community, to the extent possible .. >>>Yet, having said that and within our administrative work, we may run >>>into different situations including: >>> >>>- All proposals received fit smoothly into one puzzle (theoretical >>>best case >>>scenario) >>>- Gaps/missing information needed to complete the consolidated >>>proposal (request missing information from the relevant >>>community(ies)) >>>- Overlaps with different proposals sharing the same view (easy >>>administrative work to come up with a single draft) >>>- Overlaps where the different proposals received suggest >>>different/opposite views (I believe, this where we need to agree how >>>to >>>handle) >>>- Other possible scenarios ?? >>> >>>Just thinking out loud .. >>> >>>Please note that I did some edits, marked in track changes, to >>>ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v2.doc (hope this is the right version) >>>and saved a new version with my initials appended .. I tried to >>>reduce/eliminate the words 'decision making', to the extent possible, >>>in order to avoid any misunderstanding with respect to ICG's limited >>>role of coordination .. I'm open to better language and flexible to >>>revert back to the original text if so agreed .. >>> >>>Finally I just want to note that this does not exclude that feedback >>>from the GAC may still be received when GAC discussions are concluded .. >>> >>>Kind Regards >>>--Manal >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour >>>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 2:48 AM >>>To: Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>> >>>Hi everyone, >>> >>>as someone just coming back online, thanks to all who have been so >>>thoughtful (and active). >>> >>>I would really like to support Martin's points. Also noting, that if >>>we have substantial and consequential differences with respect to the >>>final proposal - there will not be any agreement (whether we vote or >>>call consensus). >>> >>>At the same time, it seems we might be slipping into thinking that we >>>will >>>have major autonomous decisions to make. Given our task is to >>>coordinate/assimilate proposals from 3 different communities (for >>>largely administrative work that is being done very well today), the >>>main work of reaching agreement should be in the communities. If >>>there are substantial differences, they will have to sort them out at >>>the source. >>> >>>What am I mis-understanding? >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Lynn >>> >>> >>>On Aug 15, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Martin Boyle >>><Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Joe, >>>> >>>> I am concerned by the return to the idea of supermajorities >>>> overruling significantly affected parties. I do not like recourse >>>> to voting (for reasons that I have already explained), and certainly >>>> not when it can be used to overrule legitimate concerns. >>>> >>>> First, I agree with your division between non-substantial (those not >>>> related to the final proposal, but focussed on our ways of working, >>>> charter, even the RFP) and the substantial (related to proposals). >>>> >>>> For your hyper-majority proposal (which reminds me of EU formulae >>>>for Council decisions - and that's not an accolade!), what is the >>>>percentage? >>>> I gave some thresholds in my original mail on this issue. What >>>>happens if one of the dissenting organisations were to be the gTLDs? >>>>Or the ccTLDs? >>>> (Interestingly, I don't think such a mess would happen in the case >>>>for numbers or protocols.) >>>> >>>> And being voted against won't solve the problem because you won't >>>>have addressed the specific concerns of the beaten party who would >>>>then lobby against the solution showing that we do not have a >>>>consensus proposal. >>>> >>>> Essentially, I see a distinct risk of a formulaic approach leading >>>> to a risk of marginalising particular interests simply because they >>>> don't fit the model others might prefer. >>>> >>>> I would note that the role of the ICG is to represent the wider >>>>community. >>>> However, we are not elected by them, but appointed by our >>>>communities and accountability to those communities. The chair's >>>>role is to try to pull together consensus, ensuring that serious >>>>concerns are properly considered and that the output is something >>>>that works for all and where there are appropriate safeguards. I >>>>agree that the discussion can't keep going around in loops (hence >>>>the need for us to justify our positions) and sometimes there will >>>>be a final dissenting voice who does need to be given a say in the >>>>final document. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff >>>> Sent: 14 August 2014 20:07 >>>> To: internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Colleagues: >>>> >>>> Perhaps we can consider a different dividing line on consensus. I >>>> would suggest that we have two main buckets, that which is related >>>> to a proposal and that which is related to our operations. For >>>> operations 2/3 of those expressing an opinion is sufficient to >>>> arrive at decisions, but for issues related to proposals we need >>>> more than >>>> 2/3 (other percent?) of all members with no more than 2 >>>> participating organizations dissenting. The role of the chair would >>>> thus be constrained by rules regarding when consensus is achieved, >>>> but the chair would have the ability to manage discussion or call >>>> for a formal vote if they believed it would help move us towards >>>>consensus. >>>> >>>> Slightly less complex and perhaps more action-oriented. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> On 8/14/2014 2:26 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: >>>> Agree. "Consensus" is not equivalent to "Unanimity." >>>> >>>> J. >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> >>>> Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 at 13:10 >>>> To: ICG List <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Just so I'm clear... >>>> >>>> Looking ahead....if we end up with 29 ICG reps in favor of a final >>>> recommendation and one person who unreasonably refuses to >>>> compromise, will that be deemed "consensus" or "no consensus?" >>>> >>>> Hypothetically speaking, if one holdout among us can obstruct a >>>> decision that has received support from all other members, and would >>>> prevent delivery of a recommendation....I find that very troubling. >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of WUKnoben >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:47 PM >>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Cc: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Dear Kavouss, >>>> >>>> you make the same point I expressed by saying that "I'm still >>>>uncertain with "non-substantive" issues which level of substance may >>>>depend on different views". I would welcome you providing other more >>>>useful criteria to decide in which rare cases a "poll" or "voting" >>>>could apply. >>>> >>>> As you may have seen in my latest draft I removed the "adjectives" >>>> from consensus. So I would appreciate your written suggestion for an >>>> acceptable text that I could better understand your disagreement >>>> with the present proposal. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> From:Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:22 PM >>>> To: WUKnoben >>>> Cc:Milton L Mueller ; Martin Boyle ; Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> I am not comfortable to any of these measures. >>>> The more we discuss and analyze ,the more problem is created. >>>> I strongly disagree to make any discrimination among the >>>>contstituent groups in ICG ,WHEN IT IS PROPOSED qUOTE "For >>>>substantive issues, at least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, >>>>protocols, gTLDs or >>>> ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed" >>>> What is considered by someone " substantive" may be considered by >>>>others " >>>> non substantive, >>>> NO ADJECTIVE FOR OPPOSITION .NO ADJECTIVE FOR SCONSENSUS. >>>> If you want instead of making progress to draft another chatter or >>>>convention for decision making ,I disagree with that . >>>> It ios incumbent to the chair and the two vice chairs to make utmost >>>>efforts to build consensus- Pls end this discussion Regards Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-14 18:32 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de>: >>>> Thanks all for your valuable input. >>>> >>>> Milton is right calling for verbal clarity. But differentation is >>>> also needed and there are different approaches to achieve it. And as >>>> I said before the suggestion so far was based on GNSO habit. >>>> >>>> I tried to accomodate the discussion and therefore suggest to >>>> differentiate between "recommendation by consensus" (highest level, >>>> 100%) and "recommendation" (all remaining discussion results leading >>>> to a recommendation). >>>> >>>> I agree to all basic principles Martin came up with and incorporated >>>>them. >>>> I'm still uncertain with "non-substantive" issues which level of >>>>substance may depend on different views. >>>> >>>> I would appreciate further fruitful discussion on the list and we >>>> will hopefully see an end at our call next week. >>>> >>>> See my edits attached. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Wolf-Ulrich >>>> >>>> >>>> From:Milton L Mueller >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:12 PM >>>> To: 'Martin Boyle' ; Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> I think Martin makes very good points here. >>>> I like his proposed principles, every one of them. >>>> >>>> I must confess that I have been wincing at the way the word >>>>"consensus" is (ab)used routinely in these circles. Either it is >>>>truly consensus, and everyone either agrees or agrees not to object, >>>>or it is _something else_. >>>> Will we please stop trying to apply the term "consensus" to >>>>supermajority voting processes? My academic commitment to verbal >>>>clarity and directness is screaming at me that this is wrong. >>>> >>>> The IETF concept of "rough" consensus is an informal mechanism that >>>> is suitable for a more homogeneous environment in which adherence to >>>> standards is voluntary anyway, but in an environment with binding >>>> outcomes and political factions, it can and, in the ICANN context, >>>> frequently HAS merely provided a rationalization for ignoring >>>> significant minority points of view. >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 1:24 PM >>>> To: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> First thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for his paper. I greatly like the idea >>>>of standards of good behaviour and mutual respect - and I'm pleased >>>>to see that this is already very much the framework for the way that >>>>the ICG works. I'd also note that the analysis of shades of grey in >>>>levels of support is interesting - was it Patrik who first noted the >>>>two extremes (non-substantial and substantial issues) and the level >>>>of consensus that might be needed? I'm just not sure I know how to >>>>use them... >>>> >>>> I'd firmly endorse the aim that "the ICG ... reach at least >>>>Consensus on the Proposal for the IANA Stewardship Transition to be >>>>forwarded to the NTIA" subject to our continued effort to try to >>>>achieve full/unanimous consensus or (at least) to have addressed >>>>address points of concern. >>>> >>>> However, I do not like processes that are supposed to be by >>>> consensus being resolved by voting (cf WCIT): voting leaves winners >>>>and losers. >>>> It also means that people get lazy and fail to look for compromise >>>> or common ground or ways to address "reasonable" concerns. That >>>> aversion is not really addressed by supermajorities: even at an 80% >>>> supermajority, all the domain name registries or all the government >>>> representatives or all GNSO members could be overruled. At 85% all >>>> the ccTLD registries, at 90% all the gTLD registries could be ignored. >>>> >>>> I do recognise the need for a mechanism that allows us to come to a >>>> final recommendation and I'm afraid that I do not see any magic wand. >>>> But I would suggest a number of basic principles: >>>> >>>> · The aim of the discussion should be to try to find a >>>>solution >>>> where *no member of the ICG still maintains serious opposition to >>>> the >>>> outcome.* Reasons for objections should be given, allowing the ICG >>>> wherever possible to try to address those concerns. >>>> >>>> · *Recourse to any form of voting should be the exception.* >>>>Its >>>> use might be fine for non-substantive issues. For substantive >>>>issues, at least none of the "customer groups" (numbers, protocols, >>>>gTLDs or >>>> ccTLDs) of the IANA remains strongly opposed. >>>> >>>> · Group members who still have problems with the evaluation >>>>should >>>> be invited to *identify possible ways in which the proposal could be >>>>modified to make it acceptable to them.* >>>> >>>> · Discussions should continue until *no "IANA customer" group >>>>is >>>> firmly opposed.* >>>> >>>> >>>> One final point: I would be willing to allow anyone who feels that >>>>they have not been heard to put a minority view into the final report. >>>> I'd rather that did not happen, but if the views are strong enough, >>>>it would be best to have then documented in the report than to be >>>>first aired in the discussion that follows the publication of our >>>>final report. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Sent: 11 August 2014 20:48 >>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>> Cc: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> Undoubtedly, it would be super majority either 2/3 or 4/5 . >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-11 18:18 GMT+02:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>: >>>> I agree that we will need a clear process for determining consensus >>>> that falls somewhere on the spectrum between humming and requiring a >>>> unanimous vote. >>>> >>>> If we get in to discussions of voting, we'll also need to address >>>> the thresholds required to establish consensus. Is it a simple >>>>majority? >>>> Super-majority? Unanimous voting is an unhelpful requirement that >>>> would likely obstruct our work and our ability to deliver, so I >>>> believe that should be a non-starter for the ICG. We need to avoid >>>> the possibility of one dissenting vote undermining an otherwise >>>> strongly supported recommendation that represents broad community >>>>consensus. >>>> >>>> However, if/when there is not full consensus, it will be important >>>> that we have a mechanism for expressing dissenting opinions. The >>>> GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group employs a "minority statement" >>>> mechanism to allow for all views to be expressed when there is >>>> consensus but not unanimity on a particular topic. Perhaps we should >>>> consider a similar mechanism for the ICG. >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org >>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques >>>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:09 AM >>>> To: Kavouss Arasteh >>>> Cc: Coordination Group >>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> Hello Colleagues, >>>> >>>> From the experience of the past few weeks, unfortunately we can >>>> conclude that the current process is not successful. Rather than >>>> meting out blame or praise, we need to understand why it's not >>>> working. Group dynamics and a bit of sociology can help. >>>> >>>> Our Coordination Group is different from what some of us/you have >>>>come to consider as "normal". The technical bodies (IETF, IAB) have >>>>developed an efficient process where "rough consensus" is understood >>>>and accepted. But other components of the ICG have different habits, >>>>and also a different accountability mechanism: however attractive >>>>"rough" may be, it is insufficient. For example, the GAC has its own >>>>rules (a joint position can only be reached by unanimity), and the >>>>ALAC routinely conducts all its votes on a full-membership basis >>>>(each member has to say ay, nay, abstain, or be noted down as not >>>>having cast a vote). >>>> >>>> So the challenge is this: is the "rough consensus" really adapted to >>>> all the needs of our group? With the experience gained collectively >>>> in London, and especially since then, I would recommend a dual >>>>approach: >>>> >>>> A/ MATTERS REQUIRING ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE (typically, to be decided >>>> as soon as possible, with the exception of our Transition plan) >>>> - Chair structure and membership, >>>> - Charter of the ICG, >>>> - choice of Secretariat (ICANN or outside of ICANN, or a mixture >>>> of both), >>>> - choice of near-final drafts and approval of final draft of our >>>> Transition plan, before presentation to the NTIA. >>>> >>>> B/ MATTERS WHERE OTHER FORMS OF DECISION-MAKING ARE ACCEPTABLE >>>> - Appraisal of specific community input, as a contribution to the >>>> ICG's recommended plan (e.g. ALAC should appraise input from its own >>>> community before submitting it to the whole ICG), >>>> - external relations and communications of the ICG (once the >>>> Chair structure has been chosen and populated, it may wish to ask >>>> Chair, or another of its members, to be the point of contact), >>>> - administrative & logistic matters, in conjunction with the >>>> chosen Secretariat (here too, delegation would be possible). >>>> >>>> I'm prepared to provide a more detailed proposal for the above items. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >>>> À: "Patrik Fältström" <paf(a)frobbit.se> >>>> Cc: "Coordination Group" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> >>>> Envoyé: Lundi 11 Août 2014 10:40:08 >>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building process >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Wolf >>>> Thank you very much for reply >>>> My point is that if one or more ICG Mmember(s) is7are againszt the >>>> ruling of the Chir ,They could raise their issue and the matter must >>>> be settled by simple explanation or if not resolved by voting . I.E. >>>> CHAIR DOES NOT HAVE DECISION MAKING POWER ON HE OR HIS OWN WISHES >>>> RATHER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VIEWS OF MEMBERS Regards KAVOUSS Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-08-11 8:33 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström < paf(a)frobbit.se > : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben < wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > The chair's designation that consensus is reached is not her/his >>>> > own decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of >>>> > course this designation can be challenged by members. And this is >>>> > what triggers your question about "If several participants in the >>>> > ICG disagree with the designation given ...". I'm open to any >>>> > helpful suggestion on how we could procede in such a case. >>>> > In the end consensus - as defined - has to be achieved. >>>> >>>> Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly agree with. >>>> >>>> We must deliver. >>>> >>>> This implies we must be able to reach consensus. >>>> >>>> The last couple of weeks discussions on various topics makes me a >>>>bit pessimistic on the ability for us to reach consensus, but I am >>>>optimistic, always optimistic, on peoples ability and interest in >>>>actually deliver. >>>> >>>> Remember that the chair is calling on the consensus question, not >>>> the substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a >>>> minimum and process issues. >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

4 4

RFP subgroup
by Milton L Mueller Aug. 29, 2014

Aug. 29, 2014

I want to be on it. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

10 25