Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
I've taken a shot at some comments on the draft...mostly in terms of phrasing... ----- Original Message ----- From: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com To: joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com, jjs@dyalog.net Cc: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk, internal-cg@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Dear All, In order to facilitate your tasks I have included my earlier amendment in the doc. as labeled V5 rev ka 04 Sept as attached Kavouss 2014-09-04 5:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > : I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's comments. 1. Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to voting/ultimate decision-making. In its normal usage it also applies to when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members. 2. I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also believe that we need to consider all communities. Is there a way to keep the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk To: alissa@cooperw.in , Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de , internal-cg@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building 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" 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Thanks to Martin making kind efforts to resolve some of the issues My comments on quorum and decision making is merely related to the second category of Recommendations Quote *" Recommendation *- a position where only a minority disagrees and their objections have been documented, but at least 2/3 of the members prewsnt physically or attending/participating remotely most agree and no ICG community as a whole is ...( delete firmly since objection is objection and does not require firmness) This voting should only and only be limited ,as the last ,and really last ,option/recourse, and on purely exceptional cases. Please kindly consider that simple majority is not properly responding to the delicate issue under the ICG purview and 2/3 majority ,in case of this type of recommendation, is the minimum acceptable threshold. In some parliamentary approach even 4/5 criteria is used. We should consider that I purposely mention 2/3 of those ICG Members physically attending and those remotely participating in the process to take account of every boy .That seems covering the concerns of everybody whether physically attending or remotely participating in the decision making process Regards Kavouss 2014-09-04 10:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
I've taken a shot at some comments on the draft...mostly in terms of phrasing...
----- Original Message ----- From: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com To: joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com, jjs@dyalog.net Cc: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk, internal-cg@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
Dear All, In order to facilitate your tasks I have included my earlier amendment in the doc. as labeled V5 rev ka 04 Sept as attached Kavouss
2014-09-04 5:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's comments.
1. Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to voting/ultimate decision-making. In its normal usage it also applies to when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members. 2. I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also believe that we need to consider all communities. Is there a way to keep the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead?
Joe
----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk To: alissa@cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de, internal-cg@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
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" 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Kavouss for the explanation. I think here’s the main point to be discussed at our meeting in Istanbul. I’m still more inclined to follow the consensus approach which would mean – at least for me as a consequence, and I understand Martin’s comment similarly – not to impose dedicated threshold figures but to qualitatively describe under what conditions a recommendation can be reached. Consensus means that no-one at the end is overruled. Neither 29 overrule 1 nor vice versa 1 blocks 29. Imposing a voting scheme is at least for me not consistent with this principle. I’d also like to follow some of Kavouss’ comments with Martin’s polite polishing (it definitely “will” improve my English). My comments are inserted in the document attached. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:31 PM To: Joe Alhadeff Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Dear All, Thanks to Martin making kind efforts to resolve some of the issues My comments on quorum and decision making is merely related to the second category of Recommendations Quote " Recommendation - a position where only a minority disagrees and their objections have been documented, but at least 2/3 of the members prewsnt physically or attending/participating remotely most agree and no ICG community as a whole is ...( delete firmly since objection is objection and does not require firmness) This voting should only and only be limited ,as the last ,and really last ,option/recourse, and on purely exceptional cases. Please kindly consider that simple majority is not properly responding to the delicate issue under the ICG purview and 2/3 majority ,in case of this type of recommendation, is the minimum acceptable threshold. In some parliamentary approach even 4/5 criteria is used. We should consider that I purposely mention 2/3 of those ICG Members physically attending and those remotely participating in the process to take account of every boy .That seems covering the concerns of everybody whether physically attending or remotely participating in the decision making process Regards Kavouss 2014-09-04 10:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: I've taken a shot at some comments on the draft...mostly in terms of phrasing... ----- Original Message ----- From: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com To: joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com, jjs@dyalog.net Cc: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk, internal-cg@icann.org Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building Dear All, In order to facilitate your tasks I have included my earlier amendment in the doc. as labeled V5 rev ka 04 Sept as attached Kavouss 2014-09-04 5:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's comments. 1. Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to voting/ultimate decision-making. In its normal usage it also applies to when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members. 2. I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also believe that we need to consider all communities. Is there a way to keep the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk To: alissa@cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de, internal-cg@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building 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" 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I think the dedicated voting thresholds make the process too rigid and formal. I think the explanation of making an attempt to reach consensus or at the very least having only a minority disagree is sufficient. At the end of the day, rather than pure numbers the actual situation has to be taken into account and a decision has to be made. My meta comment is also that we’re spending a lot of time in designing the process for the controversial situations, when it is quite obvious that if we fail to reach broad consensus on the proposal the NTIA will in any case observe that their requirements have not been fulfilled. (I do believe we will likely get _some_ controversy no matter how perfect the solution will be. But it is a different thing to have a couple of extreme opinions vs. significant parts of the communities having a problem.) Jari
Dear All I am sorry I am not comfortable with" a minority disagree " because I I do not know that the minoirity means Plks come back to the practice of all similar cases Either at minimum 2/3 or 4/5 I can not agree in any way to such a unqualified and quantified term of minority without explain and describing that by a clear cut criteria. If people wants to discuss the entire time between 100, 17,30 ,I am ready to do that. Plks kindly be logical I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY THING LESS THAN 2/3 AS MINIMUM Regards KAVOUSS 2014-09-05 18:19 GMT+02:00 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>:
I think the dedicated voting thresholds make the process too rigid and formal. I think the explanation of making an attempt to reach consensus or at the very least having only a minority disagree is sufficient. At the end of the day, rather than pure numbers the actual situation has to be taken into account and a decision has to be made.
My meta comment is also that we’re spending a lot of time in designing the process for the controversial situations, when it is quite obvious that if we fail to reach broad consensus on the proposal the NTIA will in any case observe that their requirements have not been fulfilled.
(I do believe we will likely get _some_ controversy no matter how perfect the solution will be. But it is a different thing to have a couple of extreme opinions vs. significant parts of the communities having a problem.)
Jari
All, attached is the document to be presented for discussion tomorrow at the related agenda item. I would characterize its status as being for the most part clean but still contentious regarding quorum and recommendation designation. The aim is to find solutions in order to remove the remaining comments. Once the document is approved I suggest to keep it as a living document since it may be necessary to cover additional items in the future (e.g. proxy). Best regards Wolf-Ulrich
Dear all. Thank you very much .The document is in a fairly good shape. However there are some grammatical mistake or inappropriate structure of the sentence. At this late hour beyond mid night I tried to correct them as attached Regards Kavouss 2014-09-05 23:07 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
All,
attached is the document to be presented for discussion tomorrow at the related agenda item. I would characterize its status as being for the most part clean but still contentious regarding quorum and recommendation designation. The aim is to find solutions in order to remove the remaining comments.
Once the document is approved I suggest to keep it as a living document since it may be necessary to cover additional items in the future (e.g. proxy).
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I think that this is very sensible, Jari. I still think it will be worth noting "... a *small* minority disagree..." -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: 05 September 2014 17:20 To: WUKnoben Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building I think the dedicated voting thresholds make the process too rigid and formal. I think the explanation of making an attempt to reach consensus or at the very least having only a minority disagree is sufficient. At the end of the day, rather than pure numbers the actual situation has to be taken into account and a decision has to be made. My meta comment is also that we're spending a lot of time in designing the process for the controversial situations, when it is quite obvious that if we fail to reach broad consensus on the proposal the NTIA will in any case observe that their requirements have not been fulfilled. (I do believe we will likely get _some_ controversy no matter how perfect the solution will be. But it is a different thing to have a couple of extreme opinions vs. significant parts of the communities having a problem.) Jari
participants (5)
-
Jari Arkko -
Joe Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
WUKnoben