consensus building
All, attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox. In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise: a.. it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making b.. “participants” replaced by “members” c.. quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. d.. re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. e.. “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. f.. minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) g.. chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair. Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Dear All, Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed Regards Kavouss 2014-09-02 0:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
All,
attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox.
In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise:
- it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making - “participants” replaced by “members” - quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. - re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. - “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. - minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) - chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair.
Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed Regards Kavouss 2014-09-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum
There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed Regards Kavouss
2014-09-02 0:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
All,
attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox.
In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise:
- it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making - “participants” replaced by “members” - quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. - re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. - “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. - minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) - chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair.
Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Once again I request you to consider my amendments In particular, Quorum : 2/3 instead of 1/2 DECISION MAKING : By consensus and under purely exceptional cases , by 2/3 of those ICG MEM,BERS present at the meeting, or by remote voting Other issue raised in my drafty Regards Kavouss 2014-09-02 15:18 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum
There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed Regards Kavouss
2014-09-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum
There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed Regards Kavouss
2014-09-02 0:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
All,
attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox.
In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise:
- it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making - “participants” replaced by “members” - quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. - re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. - “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. - minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) - chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair.
Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Kavouss, for the “many of your suggestions which where not taken into account” I’d like to answer with words Patrick was using in his answer to you: << Can you please be more specific on which one of your proposals where disregarded and ignored? I did respond to your and other's suggestions, responded with what action I took related to them. If you or someone else do believe I did draw the wrong conclusions, just speak up and let the group know what the counter proposal is.
To the points you made specifically in your email attached I have inserted my comments in blue. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:16 PM To: WUKnoben Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Dear All, Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " WUK: I understand that you would like to turn the “expectation” (which maybe imposed from outside the ICG) into “action” (coming from ICG inside). This indeed is more firm. How about “agree” (see updated v5 in dropbox). Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively WUK: I made reference to the respective website (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en). Headlines of the members’ list are “Community” and “Name of Representative”. Following this table there are 13 “communities” represented. As a consequence the number to reach quorum may vary but in any case 2 conditions have to be met. I replaced the word “member” by “ICG representative” and hope this makes it clearer. We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum WUK: This is our dilemma. We want to work and decide by consensus which would make voting (including counting votes) obsolete. We introduced polls – but in rare cases only. To be consistent we should avoid that polls become votings. And therefore the main focus should be on qualitative argumentation rather than quantitative. There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed WUK: see my email Regards Kavouss 2014-09-02 0:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: All, attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox. In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise: a.. it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making b.. “participants” replaced by “members” c.. quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. d.. re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. e.. “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. f.. minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) g.. chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair. Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Please take the following attachment( my proposal 0 and compare it with version 5 and kindly find out differences By the way you propose to replace " expected " agreed" ,I am sorry this is not some thing that we agree or disagree this is something that is imcumbent to all of us therefroe either we use the term " shall" or " should'" There are other points Please carefully read attachments plus three other messages sent since then Regards Kavouss 2014-09-02 23:09 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear Kavouss,
for the “many of your suggestions which where not taken into account” I’d like to answer with words Patrick was using in his answer to you: << Can you please be more specific on which one of your proposals where disregarded and ignored?
I did respond to your and other's suggestions, responded with what action I took related to them. If you or someone else do believe I did draw the wrong conclusions, just speak up and let the group know what the counter proposal is.
To the points you made specifically in your email attached I have inserted my comments in blue.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:16 PM *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
Dear All, Thank you very much for V5 Draft Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account e.g. ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be done either mandatory " shall " or morally mandatory " should " or between the two " needs to " WUK: I understand that you would like to turn the “expectation” (which maybe imposed from outside the ICG) into “action” (coming from ICG inside). This indeed is more firm. How about “agree” (see updated v5 in dropbox).
Quorums What is the criteria used ," at least one member from each communities" what are these communities quantitatively WUK: I made reference to the respective website ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en). Headlines of the members’ list are “Community” and “Name of Representative”. Following this table there are 13 “communities” represented. As a consequence the number to reach quorum may vary but in any case 2 conditions have to be met. I replaced the word “member” by “ICG representative” and hope this makes it clearer.
We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the decision is valid. Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the minimum WUK: This is our dilemma. We want to work and decide by consensus which would make voting (including counting votes) obsolete. We introduced polls – but in rare cases only. To be consistent we should avoid that polls become votings. And therefore the main focus should be on qualitative argumentation rather than quantitative.
There are other examples that my points were not taken into account Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed WUK: see my email
Regards Kavouss
2014-09-02 0:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
All,
attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox.
In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise:
- it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making - “participants” replaced by “members” - quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence. - re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced. - “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community. - minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex) - chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair.
Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.” Alissa
I do not know what we are dealing here Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4 2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Pls note that you are referring to earlier version here it is attached as Rev 4 ,consensus building kavouss 2014-09-03 12:10 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
I do not know what we are dealing here Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4
2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On 9/3/14, 1:10 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not know what we are dealing here
I was commenting on v5 circulated by Wolf-Ulrich. That version has text in it that I find problematic, as indicated in my email. The v4 version you circulated does not contain that language. As I will not be present on Sept 6, I’m trying to get my comments to the mailing list in advance of the meeting. Alissa
Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4
2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Friend I do not know what is in version 5 Pls look at the attached doc. KAVOUSS 2014-09-03 12:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
On 9/3/14, 1:10 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not know what we are dealing here
I was commenting on v5 circulated by Wolf-Ulrich. That version has text in it that I find problematic, as indicated in my email. The v4 version you circulated does not contain that language. As I will not be present on Sept 6, I’m trying to get my comments to the mailing list in advance of the meeting.
Alissa
Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4
2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
v5 is attached. I would send the dropbox link but I’m having dropbox connectivity problems. On 9/3/14, 1:28 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friend I do not know what is in version 5 Pls look at the attached doc. KAVOUSS
2014-09-03 12:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
On 9/3/14, 1:10 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not know what we are dealing here
I was commenting on v5 circulated by Wolf-Ulrich. That version has text in it that I find problematic, as indicated in my email. The v4 version you circulated does not contain that language. As I will not be present on Sept 6, I’m trying to get my comments to the mailing list in advance of the meeting.
Alissa
Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4
2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
version 5 still does not cover many iof my points Pls read the file as attached to my previous mail Regards KAVOUSS 2014-09-03 12:31 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
v5 is attached. I would send the dropbox link but I’m having dropbox connectivity problems.
On 9/3/14, 1:28 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friend I do not know what is in version 5 Pls look at the attached doc. KAVOUSS
2014-09-03 12:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
On 9/3/14, 1:10 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not know what we are dealing here
I was commenting on v5 circulated by Wolf-Ulrich. That version has text in it that I find problematic, as indicated in my email. The v4 version you circulated does not contain that language. As I will not be present on Sept 6, I’m trying to get my comments to the mailing list in advance of the meeting.
Alissa
Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4
2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, I am sorry to core back to you, Version 5 on Mailing is not acceptable to see since there are many problems with that version Still several points that I sent you eartlier were not taken into account. Please kindly look at the last version of my proposal as attached to my last but one e-mail. Regards Kavouss 2014-09-03 12:34 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
version 5 still does not cover many iof my points Pls read the file as attached to my previous mail Regards KAVOUSS
2014-09-03 12:31 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
v5 is attached. I would send the dropbox link but I’m having dropbox
connectivity problems.
On 9/3/14, 1:28 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friend I do not know what is in version 5 Pls look at the attached doc. KAVOUSS
2014-09-03 12:23 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
On 9/3/14, 1:10 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not know what we are dealing here
I was commenting on v5 circulated by Wolf-Ulrich. That version has text in it that I find problematic, as indicated in my email. The v4 version you circulated does not contain that language. As I will not be present on Sept 6, I’m trying to get my comments to the mailing list in advance of the meeting.
Alissa
Please kindly read my doc on consensus building sent to you last night Vrsion 4
2014-09-03 10:28 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community
leadership
on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed it. I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft attached and placed in drop-box. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.” Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, It is surprising that you continue to commenting on something that we have several difficulties with I did sent you a full amended text as rev 4 two days ago providing all amemndments with reasons for each of them We have difficulties with version 5 which is placed on drop box we can not accept that and we need to fully take into account the proposed changed that I have sent to you before DISAGREEMENT WITH V5 AS POSTED IN DROP BOX KAVOUSS 2014-09-03 23:08 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed it.
I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft attached and placed in drop-box.
Best
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
Wolf-Ulrich,
Thanks for your work on this.
On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I added the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one of the ICG communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and formally opposed. That would mean a formal written objection by the community leadership on behalf of their community.
I’m not sure this matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read:
"After enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected that the representatives of an operational community significantly and directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
Alissa
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
WUKnoben