Dear Patrik Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached KAVOUSS 2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

Joseph,

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion... On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

All,

Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.

Please come back with feedback on this list.

Regards, Patrik Fältström

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

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

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

Patrik What about including another agenda " Summary of discussions" i.e. The chair with the help of Vice chairs and Secretarait need to prepare a brief summary of what icg decided without waiting to have the transcription . In every meeting such as ICG there is such a summary Regards KAVOUSS 2014-09-01 20:13 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Patrik I see in the agenda the following:

" ICG Independent Secretariat" Yes I agree but how many times you argued with me that there is no time to go for a RFP and so on. Somebody else said, why when there is ICANN available secretariat why we should opt to have independent secretariat.

When I referred to the GAC secretariat procurement ,you disagreed with me Now every body came back to accept the initial proposal that I made. I am puzzled by this back and fort May you explain pls TKS kAVOUSS z

2014-09-01 20:07 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Patrik

...

Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached KAVOUSS

2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

Joseph,

...

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion... On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

All,

Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.

Please come back with feedback on this list.

Regards, Patrik Fältström

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

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

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

I’m fine with your agenda and Manal’s addition. I also agree to keeping an eye to best clustering. Re community updates: do you refer to those “communities” listed in the ICG members list? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Patrik Fältström Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 11:40 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6 Dear Kavouss, Regarding your proposals. The schedule of events is part of the timeline, and I interpret your suggestion regarding "ICANN Enhanced Accountability Process" being what Manal already proposed. Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We will never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And that is why I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG (or similar to it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a conclusion. If we have consensus, within an announced timeline, then we have reached a conclusion. The rest are implementation details. Patrik On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Patrik Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached KAVOUSS 2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>: Joseph, Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time. Patrik On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion... On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: All, Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6. Please come back with feedback on this list. Regards, Patrik Fältström _______________________________________________ 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 <Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Patreik I am disappointed Once again what I proposed was disregarded I still believe that they were valid Pls reconsider that and do not ignor that Regards KAVOUSS 2014-09-02 6:43 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

Wolf-Ulrich,

With that agenda item I was thinking of giving the ability for ICG members to report back "what they see is happening" in the community. It was intentionally not specific. I.e. I felt we should have some time on the agenda where it was possible for ICG members to talk about the world outside of ICG.

If specific ICG members want to say something, let me know and we will that way see how much time we can allocate per such "reporting back" sub-section.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 01:39, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

I’m fine with your agenda and Manal’s addition. I also agree to keeping an eye to best clustering.

Re community updates: do you refer to those “communities” listed in the ICG members list?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 11:40 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6

Dear Kavouss,

Regarding your proposals. The schedule of events is part of the timeline, and I interpret your suggestion regarding "ICANN Enhanced Accountability Process" being what Manal already proposed.

Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We will never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And that is why I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG (or similar to it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a conclusion.

If we have consensus, within an announced timeline, then we have reached a conclusion.

The rest are implementation details.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Patrik Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached KAVOUSS

2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Joseph,

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion... On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

All,

Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.

Please come back with feedback on this list.

Regards, Patrik Fältström

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

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

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

<Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc>

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

Patrik I tried to be constructive pls kindly do not misinterprete that I suggest that we need at the end of the meeting a brief summary of what we have agreed in order not to leave it to the chair and Vice Chairs to do it as they understood. We must know at the end of the meeting what we have agreed That point is not included

From legal point of view the ICG in full f2 f session need to formally pronounce the designation of the chair and vice chairs What is agreed is only by correspondence and must be approved Tks Kavouss

2014-09-02 11:23 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

Dear Kavouss,

Words chosen like you here do does not help our process move forward. We are working together, and that implies we also when we might disagree with each other must act in a constructive manner.

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.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:14, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Patreik I am disappointed Once again what I proposed was disregarded I still believe that they were valid Pls reconsider that and do not ignor that Regards KAVOUSS

2014-09-02 6:43 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Wolf-Ulrich,

With that agenda item I was thinking of giving the ability for ICG members to report back "what they see is happening" in the community. It was intentionally not specific. I.e. I felt we should have some time on the agenda where it was possible for ICG members to talk about the world outside of ICG.

If specific ICG members want to say something, let me know and we will that way see how much time we can allocate per such "reporting back" sub-section.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 01:39, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

I’m fine with your agenda and Manal’s addition. I also agree to keeping an eye to best clustering.

Re community updates: do you refer to those “communities” listed in the ICG members list?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> *Sent:* Monday, September 01, 2014 11:40 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6

Dear Kavouss,

Regarding your proposals. The schedule of events is part of the timeline, and I interpret your suggestion regarding "ICANN Enhanced Accountability Process" being what Manal already proposed.

Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We will never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And that is why I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG (or similar to it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a conclusion.

If we have consensus, within an announced timeline, then we have reached a conclusion.

The rest are implementation details.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Patrik Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached KAVOUSS

2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Joseph,

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:

The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion... On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

All,

Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.

Please come back with feedback on this list.

Regards, Patrik Fältström

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

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

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

<Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc>

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

Kavouss, all, My personal views are below. On 9/2/14, 12:32 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Patrik I tried to be constructive pls kindly do not misinterprete that I suggest that we need at the end of the meeting a brief summary of what we have agreed in order not to leave it to the chair and Vice Chairs to do it as they understood.

Samantha will be at the meeting to take minutes. I suggest that she keep track of the action items and decision points so that she can read a summary of them during the meeting wrap-up and send the summary to the mailing list.

We must know at the end of the meeting what we have agreed That point is not included From legal point of view the ICG in full f2 f session need to formally pronounce the designation of the chair and vice chairs What is agreed is only by correspondence and must be approved

I do not think any one of this group’s communication methods should be considered more formal than the others. Furthermore, between meetings, conference calls, and the mailing list, it is the mailing list that is most accessible to everyone in the group. We have had several calls and meetings already, none of which involved all ICG members. The meeting on Sept 6 will not involve all members, and I expect given our busy schedules that we are unlikely to have many meetings or calls where everyone can be present. The mailing list, however, is available to everyone. Therefore, we should be able to use any of our communications methods to come to decisions, we should not privilege one over the others, and we should not spend precious face-to-face time revisiting decisions that have already been finalized using other means of communication. Best, Alissa

Tks Kavouss

2014-09-02 11:23 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Dear Kavouss,

Words chosen like you here do does not help our process move forward. We are working together, and that implies we also when we might disagree with each other must act in a constructive manner.

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.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:14, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Patreik I am disappointed Once again what I proposed was disregarded I still believe that they were valid Pls reconsider that and do not ignor that Regards KAVOUSS

2014-09-02 6:43 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Wolf-Ulrich,

With that agenda item I was thinking of giving the ability for ICG members to report back "what they see is happening" in the community. It was intentionally not specific. I.e. I felt we should have some time on the agenda where it was possible for ICG members to talk about the world outside of ICG.

If specific ICG members want to say something, let me know and we will that way see how much time we can allocate per such "reporting back" sub-section.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 01:39, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

...

I’m fine with your agenda and Manal’s addition. I also agree to keeping an eye to best clustering.

Re community updates: do you refer to those “communities” listed in the ICG members list?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Patrik Fältström <mailto:paf@frobbit.se> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 11:40 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6

Dear Kavouss,

Regarding your proposals. The schedule of events is part of the timeline, and I interpret your suggestion regarding "ICANN Enhanced Accountability Process" being what Manal already proposed.

Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We will never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And that is why I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG (or similar to it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a conclusion.

If we have consensus, within an announced timeline, then we have reached a conclusion.

The rest are implementation details.

Patrik

On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear Patrik

Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter

I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached

KAVOUSS

2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

> > Joseph, > > > Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we > cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time > to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time. > > > > Patrik > > > > > > > On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process > document to be closer to the RFP discussion... > > On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > All, > > Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6. > > Please come back with feedback on this list. > > Regards, Patrik Fältström > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >

<Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc>

_______________________________________________ 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

Hi Kavouss, I’m with James on this one — if anyone is expecting our process/personnel decisions to be debated in a court of law, we have much bigger issues that we should be discussing than how we use the mailing list versus how we use meetings. Alissa On 9/2/14, 7:18 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Alissa There is no legality to any decision made through correspondence until it is approved in a f2f

2014-09-02 13:50 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:

...

Kavouss, all,

My personal views are below.

On 9/2/14, 12:32 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Patrik I tried to be constructive pls kindly do not misinterprete that I suggest that we need at the end of the meeting a brief summary of what we have agreed in order not to leave it to the chair and Vice Chairs to do it as they understood.

Samantha will be at the meeting to take minutes. I suggest that she keep track of the action items and decision points so that she can read a summary of them during the meeting wrap-up and send the summary to the mailing list.

...

We must know at the end of the meeting what we have agreed That point is not included From legal point of view the ICG in full f2 f session need to formally pronounce the designation of the chair and vice chairs What is agreed is only by correspondence and must be approved

I do not think any one of this group’s communication methods should be considered more formal than the others. Furthermore, between meetings, conference calls, and the mailing list, it is the mailing list that is most accessible to everyone in the group. We have had several calls and meetings already, none of which involved all ICG members. The meeting on Sept 6 will not involve all members, and I expect given our busy schedules that we are unlikely to have many meetings or calls where everyone can be present. The mailing list, however, is available to everyone.

Therefore, we should be able to use any of our communications methods to come to decisions, we should not privilege one over the others, and we should not spend precious face-to-face time revisiting decisions that have already been finalized using other means of communication.

Best, Alissa

...

Tks Kavouss

2014-09-02 11:23 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Dear Kavouss,

Words chosen like you here do does not help our process move forward. We are working together, and that implies we also when we might disagree with each other must act in a constructive manner.

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.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:14, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Patreik I am disappointed Once again what I proposed was disregarded I still believe that they were valid Pls reconsider that and do not ignor that Regards KAVOUSS

2014-09-02 6:43 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

Wolf-Ulrich,

With that agenda item I was thinking of giving the ability for ICG members to report back "what they see is happening" in the community. It was intentionally not specific. I.e. I felt we should have some time on the agenda where it was possible for ICG members to talk about the world outside of ICG.

If specific ICG members want to say something, let me know and we will that way see how much time we can allocate per such "reporting back" sub-section.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 01:39, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

> I’m fine with your agenda and Manal’s addition. I also agree to keeping > an eye to best clustering. > > Re community updates: do you refer to those “communities” listed in the > ICG members list? > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > From: Patrik Fältström <mailto:paf@frobbit.se> > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 11:40 PM > To: Kavouss Arasteh <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > Cc: Coordination Group <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed agenda for meeting on Sep 6 > > Dear Kavouss, > > Regarding your proposals. The schedule of events is part of the > timeline, and I interpret your suggestion regarding "ICANN Enhanced > Accountability Process" being what Manal already proposed. > > Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three > chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had > 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We > will never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And > that is why I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG > (or similar to it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a > conclusion. > > If we have consensus, within an announced timeline, then we have reached > a conclusion. > > The rest are implementation details. > > Patrik > > On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Dear Patrik > > Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation > between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as > referred to in the Charter > > I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached > > KAVOUSS > > > > > 2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>: > > > Joseph, > > > Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we > cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time > to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time. > > > > Patrik > > > > > > > On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process > document to be closer to the RFP discussion... > > On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > All, > > Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6. > > Please come back with feedback on this list. > > Regards, Patrik Fältström > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > > <Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft > Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

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

Thanks Patrik, I think the main issues are captured. Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents. This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus). For example: - IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP” Objective: Approve RFP Approve Timeline etc… Best, Lynn On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

All,

Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback.

I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation.

Patrik <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.doc> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear Patrik Dear All I humbly and once again suggest to add the two following items to the agenda 1. Confirmation/formal Designation of Chair and Vice Chairs, at the very beginning 2 Approval of Summary of conclusion reached/ decision made ( this summary should be prepared by chair and approved at the meeting) Kavouss 2014-09-02 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

All,

Can you who feel the most for the respective Agenda Items send me information you have, and I will try to add to the agenda so that it is more easy to understand. For example objectives.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:

...

Thanks Patrik,

I think the main issues are captured.

Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents. This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus).

For example:

- IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP” Objective: Approve RFP Approve Timeline etc… Best, Lynn

On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

...

All,

Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback.

I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation.

Patrik <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.doc> _______________________________________________ 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 I still believe that whether or nor ICG is political or non political environment we need to follow normal practices that every body else follows.. If in IETF or other ICANN constituencies that practice was not followed, it is not to me to intervene. However, as far as ICG which has been established pursuant to the announcement of NTIA( political or otherwise) we should formally approve or confirm the election or designation. I am n not convinced by the argument given below Quote " 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable." Unquote In the quoted paragraph it is mentioned that ' the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes" WHAT MINUTES. Dear Col;leagues There was some consultations ,there was poll. There was some outcome . Some voted .Some did not voted The results supported the Chair and two Vice chairs as contained in one of the last e-mail However, as ICG is a formal Group and its output and decisions are formal thus the designation /election of the Chair and two Vice chairs must be formally announced ,no doubt without any discussion ,what so ever , I hope that you have now been briefed as you should be and kindlky agree to that process Regards KAVOUSS I have not seen any minute( s0 as e-mail correspondence is e-mail correspondence and in no way is to be understood to construe as " Minutes" As for SUMMARY OF DECISION or WRAP UP I am happy that finally it is being accepted thus Patrik is kindly requested to include that in the agenda It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder 2014-09-02 22:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

All,

1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable. 2. I agree that a meeting wrap-up should be done. This may be done in a written form with bullet points. I would not ask for a document similar to the GAC communiquees which need prior formal coordination. It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:54 PM *To:* Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda

Dear Patrik Dear All I humbly and once again suggest to add the two following items to the agenda 1. Confirmation/formal Designation of Chair and Vice Chairs, at the very beginning 2 Approval of Summary of conclusion reached/ decision made ( this summary should be prepared by chair and approved at the meeting) Kavouss

2014-09-02 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

All,

Can you who feel the most for the respective Agenda Items send me information you have, and I will try to add to the agenda so that it is more easy to understand. For example objectives.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:

...

Thanks Patrik,

I think the main issues are captured.

Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents. This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus).

For example:

- IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP” Objective: Approve RFP Approve Timeline etc… Best, Lynn

On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

...

All,

Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback.

I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation.

Patrik <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.doc> _______________________________________________ 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

Then we need to put reference to that minutes when published WE NEED TO DO THE WORK PRPOERLY If there is a minutes officially published and in that minutes reference made toi the election then reference to that minutes to be made, However, approving the minutes of a conference call is not legal as it reflects the views of those participated at the discussion. Alissia and others the issue was simple It is become more complex in referring to the minutes Once again simple affirmation of the election as an agenda item is the only possible way Pls reconder it again Regards Kavouss 2014-09-03 9:31 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:

Just responding to note that Samantha was on both of our last calls, including the one where we discussed the approval of the chairs/vice-chairs, and I believe she will be sending minutes for our review and publication.

Alissa

On 9/2/14, 11:50 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All I still believe that whether or nor ICG is political or non political environment we need to follow normal practices that every body else follows.. If in IETF or other ICANN constituencies that practice was not followed, it is not to me to intervene. However, as far as ICG which has been established pursuant to the announcement of NTIA( political or otherwise) we should formally approve or confirm the election or designation. I am n not convinced by the argument given below Quote " 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable." Unquote In the quoted paragraph it is mentioned that ' the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes" WHAT MINUTES. Dear Col;leagues There was some consultations ,there was poll. There was some outcome . Some voted .Some did not voted The results supported the Chair and two Vice chairs as contained in one of the last e-mail However, as ICG is a formal Group and its output and decisions are formal thus the designation /election of the Chair and two Vice chairs must be formally announced ,no doubt without any discussion ,what so ever , I hope that you have now been briefed as you should be and kindlky agree to that process Regards KAVOUSS I have not seen any minute( s0 as e-mail correspondence is e-mail correspondence and in no way is to be understood to construe as " Minutes" As for SUMMARY OF DECISION or WRAP UP I am happy that finally it is being accepted thus Patrik is kindly requested to include that in the agenda

It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder

2014-09-02 22:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

...

All,

1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable. 2. I agree that a meeting wrap-up should be done. This may be done in a written form with bullet points. I would not ask for a document similar to the GAC communiquees which need prior formal coordination. It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:54 PM *To:* Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda

Dear Patrik Dear All I humbly and once again suggest to add the two following items to the agenda 1. Confirmation/formal Designation of Chair and Vice Chairs, at the very beginning 2 Approval of Summary of conclusion reached/ decision made ( this summary should be prepared by chair and approved at the meeting) Kavouss

2014-09-02 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:

...

All,

Can you who feel the most for the respective Agenda Items send me information you have, and I will try to add to the agenda so that it is more easy to understand. For example objectives.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:

...

Thanks Patrik,

I think the main issues are captured.

Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents. This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus).

For example:

- IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP” Objective: Approve RFP Approve Timeline etc… Best, Lynn

On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

...

All,

Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback.

I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation.

Patrik <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.doc> _______________________________________________ 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

Dear Adiel Thank you for your kind and moderate and tolerable method of communication Yes I could generally agree with you but I think there is no harm to just put a simple item ibn the agenda as Announcement of the elected chair and vice chairs Under that someone, dean of the meeting , announces that as results of consultation Alissa and Patrik and Mohammed were elected or designated ad chair and vice chairs I discussed that few minutes ago with mohammed and he agreed with that. May we take your proposed approached combined with mine. I hope others ,like what you did, agree ,to some degree of tolerance I need to be formal even if every thing to be done as simple as possible The approach you suggested combined with what I said is simple and valid Regards Kavouss 2014-09-03 12:36 GMT+02:00 Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net>:

Hello Kavouss,

While in the context of a Board or any structural organisation body I understand your stand that decision taken online (the selection of the chairs happened on the mailing list) need to be **ratified** during formal meeting (which is normal governance practice), I would like to raise the fact the ICG is not managing a legal organisation but a coordination group put in place to do a specific job. We want to have simple and straight forward mechanisms to get the job done. We need to avoid over engineering this and adding too much bureaucracy to it.

I will suggest as alternative to address your concern that we add a simple statement to the ICG page naming the Officers and the process by which they were selected.

In fact do we have a defined quorum for our face to face meeting? If not, we may as well define and agree that all decisions of the ICG should be formally taken only our mailing list where we are sure we have everyone. That can be documented in our rule of proceedings.

- a.

On Sep 3, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Then we need to put reference to that minutes when published WE NEED TO DO THE WORK PRPOERLY If there is a minutes officially published and in that minutes reference made toi the election then reference to that minutes to be made, However, approving the minutes of a conference call is not legal as it reflects the views of those participated at the discussion. Alissia and others the issue was simple It is become more complex in referring to the minutes Once again simple affirmation of the election as an agenda item is the only possible way Pls reconder it again Regards Kavouss

2014-09-03 9:31 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Just responding to note that Samantha was on both of our last calls, including the one where we discussed the approval of the chairs/vice-chairs, and I believe she will be sending minutes for our review and publication.

Alissa

On 9/2/14, 11:50 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All I still believe that whether or nor ICG is political or non political environment we need to follow normal practices that every body else follows.. If in IETF or other ICANN constituencies that practice was not followed, it is not to me to intervene. However, as far as ICG which has been established pursuant to the announcement of NTIA( political or otherwise) we should formally approve or confirm the election or designation. I am n not convinced by the argument given below Quote " 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable." Unquote In the quoted paragraph it is mentioned that ' the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes" WHAT MINUTES. Dear Col;leagues There was some consultations ,there was poll. There was some outcome . Some voted .Some did not voted The results supported the Chair and two Vice chairs as contained in one of the last e-mail However, as ICG is a formal Group and its output and decisions are formal thus the designation /election of the Chair and two Vice chairs must be formally announced ,no doubt without any discussion ,what so ever , I hope that you have now been briefed as you should be and kindlky agree to that process Regards KAVOUSS I have not seen any minute( s0 as e-mail correspondence is e-mail correspondence and in no way is to be understood to construe as " Minutes" As for SUMMARY OF DECISION or WRAP UP I am happy that finally it is being accepted thus Patrik is kindly requested to include that in the agenda

It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder

2014-09-02 22:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>: All,

1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable. 2. I agree that a meeting wrap-up should be done. This may be done in a written form with bullet points. I would not ask for a document similar to the GAC communiquees which need prior formal coordination. It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:54 PM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Version 1 of the agenda

Dear Patrik Dear All I humbly and once again suggest to add the two following items to the agenda 1. Confirmation/formal Designation of Chair and Vice Chairs, at the very beginning 2 Approval of Summary of conclusion reached/ decision made ( this summary should be prepared by chair and approved at the meeting) Kavouss

2014-09-02 12:06 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>: All,

Can you who feel the most for the respective Agenda Items send me information you have, and I will try to add to the agenda so that it is more easy to understand. For example objectives.

Patrik

On 2 sep 2014, at 12:19, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:

...

Thanks Patrik,

I think the main issues are captured.

Could I also suggest that for each item, the "agenda item leader" add a short statement of what we expect to accomplish (or a Purpose statement) as well as a link to the appropriate documents. This will help remote participants (and may even help the ICG focus).

For example:

- IANA Functions Transition Request for Proposals “RFP” Objective: Approve RFP Approve Timeline etc… Best, Lynn

On Sep 2, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

...

All,

Thanks for the comments. Version 1 of the agenda is just released where I have tried to move things around, re-allocated time slots etc according to the feedback.

I have still not validated time for lunch, coffee break and translators. Those outside events might impact time allocation.

Patrik <Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul-v1.doc> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

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

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

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

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

This is a very good idea, Manal. It should be added to the agenda. --MM

-----Original Message-----

...

The recent update on the accountability process mentions an ICG liaison to the accountability group .. I don't recall discussing this within ICG .. If the agenda allows and colleagues agree, I suggest adding this to the agenda of our f2f meeting, also in light of the discussions that will take place the day before our meeting ..

Kind Regards --Manal