September 2014 - Internal-cg

Summary of Sept 17 call decisions/action items
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Decisions: 1. Minutes of the August 19 and 26 conference calls were approved with one suggested change from Heather. 2. Decision making document was approved with changes discussed on the call. (final redline is attached) Action items: 1. Samantha to incorporate into August 26 minutes the change suggested by Heather. 2. Alice to post finalized August 19 and 26 minutes to the web site. 3. Alissa to produce clean version of decision making document. 4. Alice to post final version of decision making document to the web site. 5. Alice to investigate extending the time for the ICG community session at ICANN 51. 6. Alissa to respond to GAC/ALAC ICANN 51 scheduling requests to indicate that individual communities may want to engage, but not on behalf of ICG. 7. Alissa to follow up with Mary regarding CCWG scheduling at ICANN 51.

1 0

Draft Minutes of Second Teleconference: suggested edit
by Heather.Dryden＠ic.gc.ca Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Dear all, As raised on the ICG call currently in process, I am proposing clarification of a sentence for the minutes of Second Teleconference under "4. Consensus Process", in the summing up of my comments, the new sentence would read, "She explains that GAC members on the ICG could not vote on such narrow issues." Best, Heather

1 0

Apologies
by Daniel Karrenberg Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Dear Alissa & colleagues, I must apologise for the phone conference later today due to fatigue caused by a number of unforeseen obligations. Since so many of you are much better experts in consensus processes than I will ever be, I do not think this will be a loss to the group. I have full confidence that you will come up with a process that will be sufficient to assemble a final proposal. Have a good meeting! Daniel

1 0

Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Hi Kavouss, all, I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean). This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the language. I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever, I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work. My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for discussion on Sept 17. Alissa On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Martin, > Dear Joe > Deal Alissa > I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d > Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my > suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply > Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions > I made comments awaiting his reply > I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago > Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly > one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments > However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft > WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION > Regards > Kavouss > > I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe > > > 2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>: >> >> Mary: >> >> I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a >> sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not >> all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the >> current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify >> language in that direction to address your concerns? >> >> Joe >> >> >> On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and >>> work of the ICG. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done >>> with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always >>> prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or >>> overruled with voting. >>> >>> >>> Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work >>> and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the >>> expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the >>> final report. >>> >>> >>> It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I >>> did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the >>> 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a >>> language to replace it. >>> >>> >>> >>> What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. . >>> >>> BR >>> Mary Uduma >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_1> >>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6> >>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_2> >>> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_3> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff >>> <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I look forward to your considered reply. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts >>>> >>>> Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of >>>> both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" >>>> could be a solution. >>>> >>>> Kavouss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kavous: >>>>> >>>>> I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be >>>>> on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have >>>>> wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for >>>>> saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the >>>>> operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the >>>>> objection is operational, have a different nature of objection... >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps a better phrasing might be: >>>>> >>>>> All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad >>>>> consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of >>>>> concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact >>>>> the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of >>>>> the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more >>>>> operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to >>>>> submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements. >>>>> >>>>> This would replace the last sentence. >>>>> >>>>> Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been >>>>> beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in >>>>> context... >>>>> >>>>> Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine... >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting >>>>>> divergence. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the last sentence of added bullet >>>>>> >>>>>> Quote >>>>>> >>>>>> While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems >>>>>> clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational >>>>>> community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an >>>>>> acceptable consensus proposal. " >>>>>> >>>>>> Unquote >>>>>> >>>>>> Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in >>>>>> which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under >>>>>> consideration >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to >>>>>> submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " >>>>>> >>>>>> b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and >>>>>> protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . >>>>>> >>>>>> In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable >>>>>> that you have maintained the concept of case by case . >>>>>> >>>>>> Awating your kind clarification >>>>>> >>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Colleagues: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a >>>>>>> number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have >>>>>>> tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. >>>>>>> · Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the >>>>>>> concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a >>>>>>> case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature >>>>>>> and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection >>>>>>> – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of >>>>>>> communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those >>>>>>> concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is >>>>>>> the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the >>>>>>> objection of an operational community would significantly limit the >>>>>>> ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do >>>>>>> make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA >>>>>>> requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond >>>>>>> assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as >>>>>>> Martin's question related to why polling... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope these help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting >>>>>>> suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a >>>>>>> suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a >>>>>>> slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as >>>>>>> I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her >>>>>>> mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 >>>>>>> To: Martin Boyle >>>>>>> Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with most of the things that you said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and >>>>>>> move all of your comments to the covering. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but >>>>>>> prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one >>>>>>> believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means >>>>>>> everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only >>>>>>> three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should >>>>>>> be met but we want to give opportunity to others >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark >>>>>>> approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if >>>>>>> one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language >>>>>>> and approach used by a particular community >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We need to be general and cover every body's case >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kavouss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>>>> Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >

9 22

Flow Chart - Assembling a unified consensus proposal ..
by Manal Ismail Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Dear All .. In light of our discussions, Michael has developed the attached flow chart for the foreseen process that is to be followed in assembling a unified consensus proposal .. Seeking feedback from Jandyr and myself, we all thought it would be more practical to seek ICG members' feedback and make sure the chart reflects a common understanding, before using it in any outreach activities .. Furthermore, if ICG members feel it's useful and agree to its content, I think it may be helpful if we have it uploaded to the Dropbox, with Michael's permission .. Kind Regards --Manal

5 14

Statement of Interest (SOI)
by WUKnoben Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Alissa, see the text attached. It could replace the present one in the “Domain Names” box on https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community by the text attached. regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:46 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ; internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks. Would it be possible for you to write this up with a bit of explanatory text to be posted on ? Best, Alissa On 9/10/14, 3:27 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben(a)t-online.de> wrote: All, please see the information attached regarding the creation of an SOI in case of participation in the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) initiated by the “Names” community. Support shall be provided either via the secretariat of the Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committees (SO/AC) those interested are affiliated with (who will redirect as needed) or Grace Abuhamad (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org) who is with the CWG support team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben Subject: GNSO SOI Hi Wolf-Ulrich, I saw some questions in relation to the GNSO SOI in relation to the CWG on the IGC mailing list archives. Please note that the wiki page for the CWG that has just been created includes a page with a direct link with information on how to create a GNSO SOI: https://community.icann.org/x/HgvxAg. Of course, staff will also assist participants should they have any issues in following these instructions. Best regards, Marika _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Proposed agenda for Sept 17 call
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Please comment. 1. Minutes approval from Aug 19 and Aug 26 conference calls – 3 minutes 2. Consensus building document – 45 minutes 3. Side meetings at ICANN51 – remaining time Alissa

6 7

Today - ICG Call #4
by Alice Jansen Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #4 is **TODAY** at 21:30-22:30UTC See timezone conversion at: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+Call+%234&iso=… Note that an announcement was published on the ICANN website yesterday and may be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-16-en Call details were emailed to you in off-list notifications. You should also have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. In you cannot find them, please send me an email (off-list) and I will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: [cid:3364EF36-9D4D-489F-A6D3-131BC32AE69B] If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let me know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language, please note that AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Note, however, that as indicated in the call details, the FR booth will interpret from English into French only. The agenda circulated by Alissa will be available in the virtual meeting room: 1. Minutes approval from Aug 19 and Aug 26 conference calls - 3 minutes 2. Consensus building document - 45 minutes 3. Side meetings at ICANN51 - remaining time We would be very grateful if you could also state your name when speaking as the call will be recorded, transcribed and interpreted. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Best regards Alice

1 0

GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI)
by WUKnoben Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

All, please see the information attached regarding the creation of an SOI in case of participation in the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) initiated by the “Names” community. Support shall be provided either via the secretariat of the Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committees (SO/AC) those interested are affiliated with (who will redirect as needed) or Grace Abuhamad (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org) who is with the CWG support team. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben Subject: GNSO SOI Hi Wolf-Ulrich, I saw some questions in relation to the GNSO SOI in relation to the CWG on the IGC mailing list archives. Please note that the wiki page for the CWG that has just been created includes a page with a direct link with information on how to create a GNSO SOI: https://community.icann.org/x/HgvxAg. Of course, staff will also assist participants should they have any issues in following these instructions. Best regards, Marika

3 2

Centralized information portal and RFP with link
by Alissa Cooper Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

The centralized information portal is live: <https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community>. Please circulate it with your constituencies. I added the link to the RFP (attached and in Dropbox). Alice, could we get this version published on the web site as a stable draft and make an announcement about its publication? Thanks, Alissa

2 3