And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari

OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear Mary Thank you for your message I sent you what was generally agreed at the meeting of 11. I do not see any reason why I should do differently. It was agreed that 1. We no longer refer to quorum 2. No longer about the criteria to be used for decision making in terms of 1/2.2/3 or ... 3. We concentrate that the objective is consensus building for every thing 4. in rare cases of disagreement, chair with the assistance of vice chairs make every and utmost possible effort to find solution 5. If all efforts to do so are exhausted, we make all possible efforts to explore all possible ways and means to reach agreement take the case by case approach in a case by case approach 6. at the end one possible, among others, is mentioned to resolve a case given .i.e. the resolution of disagreement was left an open issue to be treated case by case according to the nature of the problem . 7 All pending amendments which were placed in square bracket are thus to be deleted and the text is editorially amended ( replacing " personnel " by administrative and so on and restructured as mentioned above That is all Kavouss 2014-09-07 2:21 GMT+02:00 Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com>:

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:

1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.

2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :

Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.

3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'

4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.

Safe trip everyone.

Mary Uduma

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:

OOOOsh!!!!

Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.

Please ignore my last unfinished mail.

Mary

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko < jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)

Jari

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

I seem to have sent my summary of the discussion before reading the whole thread .. Was on my return trip with occasional connectivity .. Will go through the whole thread and attachments and get back to the list .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 11:00 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Kavouss, colleagues: Thanks for your work on this. I have attached a draft with a few edits: Where quorum was removed, I added a paragraph about what happens if someone is not in the meeting when decisions are made. We discussed a mail procedure during the meeting. In the draft related to consensus mechanisms and recommendations, I tried to break out the final recommendation decisions as a separate section. I'm trying to make it easier to follow for those who have not been part of the discussions. I also think its important to have a chair's report that specifies the status quo of the impasse and what has been done to try to resolve it. Hope these help. Moving on to second leg of the return trip- Joe On 9/7/2014 1:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote Dear Mary Thank you for your message I sent you what was generally agreed at the meeting of 11. I do not see any reason why I should do differently. It was agreed that 1. We no longer refer to quorum 2. No longer about the criteria to be used for decision making in terms of 1/2.2/3 or ... 3. We concentrate that the objective is consensus building for every thing 4. in rare cases of disagreement, chair with the assistance of vice chairs make every and utmost possible effort to find solution 5. If all efforts to do so are exhausted, we make all possible efforts to explore all possible ways and means to reach agreement take the case by case approach in a case by case approach 6. at the end one possible, among others, is mentioned to resolve a case given .i.e. the resolution of disagreement was left an open issue to be treated case by case according to the nature of the problem . 7 All pending amendments which were placed in square bracket are thus to be deleted and the text is editorially amended ( replacing " personnel " by administrative and so on and restructured as mentioned above That is all Kavouss 2014-09-07 2:21 GMT+02:00 Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com>: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ 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

Can someone of the "G11" let the rest of us know when a new version of the text is ready for review?

We merely had a discussion about consensus, and it felt that had gotten closer to each other on the importance of reaching actual consensus, on trying to resolve issues as much as possible, on not blocking moving ahead if after all efforts there’s someone who doesn’t agree, and on voting or lack thereof. That is good - we understand each other better now and are probably closer to making proposals that could be supported by the ICG. I think Kavouss has written something, but I have not had time to look at it yet. I will take off now and return to this topic early next week. Thanks all for a good meeting. Jari

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 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

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

*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:

1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.

2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :

Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.

3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'

4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.

Safe trip everyone.

Mary Uduma

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:

OOOOsh!!!!

Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.

Please ignore my last unfinished mail.

Mary

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)

Jari

_______________________________________________ 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

Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Cc: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ICG <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion 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 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ 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

Dear Wolf Please kindly make your concrete amendments in form of revision marks to the vclean doc. that I sent you rather than making comments on the margin Regards Kavouss 2014-09-09 11:20 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

Dear Heather,

I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this

I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM *To:* wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com *Cc:* Internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call.

Heather

*From*: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] *Sent*: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM *To*: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc*: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

All,

let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator.

As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited.

Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> ; Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss

2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

...

And thanks to Manal for this very good summary!

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM *To:* Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> ; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> ; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

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

*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Uduma *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM *To:* Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:

1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.

2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :

Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.

3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'

4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.

Safe trip everyone.

Mary Uduma

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:

OOOOsh!!!!

Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.

Please ignore my last unfinished mail.

Mary

On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jari , Arasteh and All,

Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.

I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.

In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)

Jari

_______________________________________________ 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

Joe, you’re right. I’ve seen some of your edits taken by Kavouss in a condensed form but not all of them. Certainly you should be given the opportunity to comment on this revision again. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:16 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Wolf: I had added some language on decisions where parties are not present in the comments I had made to the last round as a reflection of our conversation and replacement of the concept of quorum. Joe On 9/9/2014 5:20 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Dear Heather, I attach - the version presented at the Istanbul meeting - the version amended by Kavouss based on the discussion after the meeting - my amendments/comments to this I hope it helps understanding our status of discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:53 PM To: wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de ; kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Thank you Wolf-Ulrich. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion group that met after the ICG meetings concluded so I appreciate having a copy of the latest version of the consensus document and the chance to compare and consider its contents before finalizing the document on the Sep. 17 call. Heather From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 09:41 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com Cc: Coordination Group mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion All, let me first say that the discussion in the after-meeting-session (“G11”) was helpful for better understanding as well as moving ahead towards an agreement about the consensus building process. Thanks again to Manal to sum up the essential points made. And thanks to Kavouss as the G11 coordinator. As it deemed to be necessary and for fairness reasons I’ve made a comparison between the document version which has been on the table when we cut the discussion last Saturday and the last one Kavouss has edited. Please find the result attached. As we agreed to Patriks proposal to use a significant part of the next call on 17 Sep to (finally) discuss the process it should be diligently prepared. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:42 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Manal Ismail ; Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All, I have considered and to a great extent taken into account all of your comments I therefore created a clean version called V1 after 08 Sept. Please consider this clean version and 1 make any editorial /language improvement 2 make minimum changes as we may not finish if we start again to redraft. There is a requirement that first and foremost every body feel comfortable then at least every body equally uncomfortable . Kavouss 2014-09-08 15:51 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: And thanks to Manal for this very good summary! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 1:29 PM To: Mary Uduma ; Jari Arkko ; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion 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 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ 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