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@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@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@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@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@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@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg