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@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@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 <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 listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg