Dear All ..

As one of those who have attended the ‘consensus building’ discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:

-          Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..

-          Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA

-          A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided

-          Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)

-          Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)

ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:

-          Stresses the need for reaching consensus

-          Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part

-          Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis

-          List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions

So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..

Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..

Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..

Kind Regards

--Manal