Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Hi Kavouss, all, I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean). This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the language. I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever, I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work. My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for discussion on Sept 17. Alissa On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Dear Joe Deal Alissa I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions I made comments awaiting his reply I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION Regards Kavouss
I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe
2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Mary:
I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns?
Joe
On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:
Dear All,
I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG.
I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments).
The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting.
Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report.
It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it.
What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .
BR Mary Uduma
<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_1> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_2> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_3>
On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I look forward to your considered reply.
Best
Joe
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts
Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution.
Kavouss
2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe,
Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence.
In the last sentence of added bullet
Quote
While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "
Unquote
Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration
a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "
b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated .
In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case .
Awating your kind clarification
Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
> > Colleagues: > > In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a > number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have > tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. > · Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the > concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a > case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature > and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection > – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of > communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those > concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is > the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the > objection of an operational community would significantly limit the > ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. > > > > > Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do > make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA > requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond > assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as > Martin's question related to why polling... > > Hope these help. > > Joe > > > > > > > On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting > suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a > suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a > slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as > I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. > > > > I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her > mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. > > > > Cheers > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] > Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 > To: Martin Boyle > Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion > > > > > > > Martin > > I agree with most of the things that you said. > > However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and > move all of your comments to the covering. > > It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but > prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one > believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means > everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. > > What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only > three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should > be met but we want to give opportunity to others > > I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. > > Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark > approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin > > SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish > > However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if > one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language > and approach used by a particular community > > We need to be general and cover every body's case > > Regards > > Kavouss > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Alissa, I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss 2014-09-16 0:46 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss, all,
I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean). This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the language.
I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever, I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work.
My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for discussion on Sept 17.
Alissa
On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Martin, Dear Joe Deal Alissa I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions I made comments awaiting his reply I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION Regards Kavouss
I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe
2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Mary:
I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns?
Joe
On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote:
Dear All, I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG.
I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments).
The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it.
What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. .
BR Mary Uduma
<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_1> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_2> <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=do1cusnv81vp6#_msocom_3>
On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I look forward to your considered reply.
Best
Joe
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss
2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavous:
I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection...
Perhaps a better phrasing might be:
All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements.
This would replace the last sentence.
Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context...
Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine...
Joe
On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote *While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. "* *Unquote* Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss
2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. · *Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. *
Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling...
Hope these help.
Joe
On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns.
I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 11 September 2014 21:34 *To:* Martin Boyle *Cc:* Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you for doing this, Alissa. It seems to me that you have found a careful path through the different concerns identified in earlier drafts: I think that I could now accept the whole document as is. Cheers Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 16 September 2014 09:41 To: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Alissa, I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss 2014-09-16 0:46 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>: Hi Kavouss, all, I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean). This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the language. I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever, I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work. My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for discussion on Sept 17. Alissa On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Martin, Dear Joe Deal Alissa I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions I made comments awaiting his reply I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION Regards Kavouss I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe 2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: Mary: I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns? Joe On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: Dear All, I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG. I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments). The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it. What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. . BR Mary Uduma On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: I look forward to your considered reply. Best Joe Sent from my iPad On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss 2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: Kavous: I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection... Perhaps a better phrasing might be: All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements. This would replace the last sentence. Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context... Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine... Joe On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " Unquote Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss 2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: Colleagues: In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. · Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling... Hope these help. Joe On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions.Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss
Alissa, thank you very much for putting it together to an understandable document which I’m in agreement with. I’m also fine with Joe’s edits. I think changing the headline of 3. may consequently require to remove the indents a, b and c. In chapter 4. there is a typo in the penultimate line to c. It should read “from” instead “form”. Looking forward to find consensus on this document tomorrow. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:14 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, All Others I have now read the doc. It is ok with me eventhiough it is not perfect .However, it is the results of at least 80 additional exchange of e-mails in second round based on G11 for which I have the honour to coordinate. However, as Milton indicated there are few areas that require strictly and purely editorial alignment such as the passge below " *Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community (ies) or a subset of a or a number of communities and the attemps that have been made to resolve those objections*" . I leave it to Alissa to make this purely and strictly editorial correction together with any other strictly and purely edits. No other changes AT ALL It is not perfect but reflects results of extensive works by all of us Kavouss 2014-09-16 22:38 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Alissa, thank you very much for putting it together to an understandable document which I’m in agreement with.
I’m also fine with Joe’s edits. I think changing the headline of 3. may consequently require to remove the indents a, b and c.
In chapter 4. there is a typo in the penultimate line to c. It should read “from” instead “form”.
Looking forward to find consensus on this document tomorrow.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:14 PM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J .. Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, I strongly suggest we avoid to make any perfection to the text. We just take what we have agreed . We engage in such a liberty to further improve the language in anstylic fashion we may have a situation to be faced with unintended consequences. I therefore humbly suggest not to make any improvement rather to detect any editorial and purely editorial amendment Regards Kavouss 2014-09-17 12:34 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate ..
Page 1:
- 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency
- I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
Page 2:
- 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
- 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph ..
I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J ..
Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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 Manal: as you say, these are all quite forward drafting changes and do make the text much clearer, without altering the intentions of the text. I’m a great fan of saying things as clearly as we can, so I’d be happy with adopting all of these proposals while not re-opening the text to further discussion. Thanks Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 17 September 2014 11:35 To: Alissa Cooper; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages ☺ .. Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
TOP URGENT Martin, Alissa Please and please provide an editorially updated doc. possibly with new reference called Draft for Conference call from Alissa by styopping any further perfection of text just few hours before Conference call Regards Kavouss 2014-09-17 12:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Thanks Manal: as you say, these are all quite forward drafting changes and do make the text much clearer, without altering the intentions of the text. I’m a great fan of saying things as clearly as we can, so I’d be happy with adopting all of these proposals while not re-opening the text to further discussion.
Thanks
Martin
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Manal Ismail *Sent:* 17 September 2014 11:35 *To:* Alissa Cooper; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate ..
Page 1:
- 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency
- I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
Page 2:
- 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
- 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph ..
I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J ..
Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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 Manal, I’ve inserted my comments in red Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM To: Alissa Cooper ; joseph alhadeff ; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist... I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J .. be courageous if you are not convinced... Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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
There is redundancy, but they do address slightly separate issues... The third paragraph addresses the issue of what happens to those people that may have provided input in advance and are not happy with the outcome. The last paragraph may address people who were at the meeting and are not happy with the outcome. Would that be clearer if we moved that paragraph up? On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Thanks Manal, I’ve inserted my comments in red
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM *To:* Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate ..
Page 1:
-4^th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency
-I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf
Page 2:
-3^rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meetingfor decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent membersshould be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
-4^th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph ..
I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist...
I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J..
be courageous if you are not convinced...
Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided.
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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 am sympathetic to the concern raised by Kavous that we need a stable draft to consider on the call so that everyone will have had an opportunity to review.... there will be opportunities on the call to raise any residual concerns. can we at least suggest that at least 4 hours before the call a final draft for consideration will be posted so that we are all on the same page? On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Thanks Manal, I’ve inserted my comments in red
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM *To:* Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate ..
Page 1:
-4^th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency
-I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf
Page 2:
-3^rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meetingfor decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent membersshould be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
-4^th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph ..
I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist...
I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J..
be courageous if you are not convinced...
Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided.
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thank you all for your replies, comments and clarification of the need for paragraph 4 referenced below .. I would just like to note that: - I have not edited the version shared by Alissa to be used on the call .. The final draft is already there untouched .. so I hope there is need for an editorially updated doc. with new reference called Draft for Conference call .. - I have sent my remarks over email as wisely suggested by Alissa to avoid such confusion .. I thought this is going to be equally good, if not better, to sharing them over the call .. - I have already mentioned at the very beginning that I’m flexible to revert to the original text if so agreed .. Looking forward to our call later today .. Kind Regards --Manal From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:37 PM To: WUKnoben; Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 I am sympathetic to the concern raised by Kavous that we need a stable draft to consider on the call so that everyone will have had an opportunity to review.... there will be opportunities on the call to raise any residual concerns. can we at least suggest that at least 4 hours before the call a final draft for consideration will be posted so that we are all on the same page? On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Thanks Manal, I’ve inserted my comments in red Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM To: Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf> Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. - I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist... I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J .. be courageous if you are not convinced... Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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
Alissa, Once again I request to post the draft with new name final draft for conference call Kavouss 2014-09-17 16:34 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Thank you all for your replies, comments and clarification of the need for paragraph 4 referenced below ..
I would just like to note that:
- I have not edited the version shared by Alissa to be used on the call .. The final draft is already there untouched .. so I hope there is need for an editorially updated doc. with new reference called Draft for Conference call ..
- I have sent my remarks over email as wisely suggested by Alissa to avoid such confusion .. I thought this is going to be equally good, if not better, to sharing them over the call ..
- I have already mentioned at the very beginning that I’m flexible to revert to the original text if so agreed ..
Looking forward to our call later today ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:37 PM *To:* WUKnoben; Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
I am sympathetic to the concern raised by Kavous that we need a stable draft to consider on the call so that everyone will have had an opportunity to review.... there will be opportunities on the call to raise any residual concerns. can we at least suggest that at least 4 hours before the call a final draft for consideration will be posted so that we are all on the same page?
On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Thanks Manal,
I’ve inserted my comments in red
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM
*To:* Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate ..
Page 1:
- 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency
- I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf
Page 2:
- 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
- 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph ..
- I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist...
I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J ..
be courageous if you are not convinced...
Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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 Mr. Arasteh .. I’m not debating your request, I just noticed I typo in my below email that I wish to correct .. I meant to say “… I hope there is no need for an editorially updated doc. …” Just thought it’s worth noting .. apologies for the inconvenience .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:03 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: joseph alhadeff; WUKnoben; Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Alissa, Once again I request to post the draft with new name final draft for conference call Kavouss 2014-09-17 16:34 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Thank you all for your replies, comments and clarification of the need for paragraph 4 referenced below .. I would just like to note that: - I have not edited the version shared by Alissa to be used on the call .. The final draft is already there untouched .. so I hope there is need for an editorially updated doc. with new reference called Draft for Conference call .. - I have sent my remarks over email as wisely suggested by Alissa to avoid such confusion .. I thought this is going to be equally good, if not better, to sharing them over the call .. - I have already mentioned at the very beginning that I’m flexible to revert to the original text if so agreed .. Looking forward to our call later today .. Kind Regards --Manal From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:37 PM To: WUKnoben; Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 I am sympathetic to the concern raised by Kavous that we need a stable draft to consider on the call so that everyone will have had an opportunity to review.... there will be opportunities on the call to raise any residual concerns. can we at least suggest that at least 4 hours before the call a final draft for consideration will be posted so that we are all on the same page? On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Thanks Manal, I’ve inserted my comments in red Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM To: Alissa Cooper <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf> Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. - I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist... I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J .. be courageous if you are not convinced... Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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 do hope that we can use the version posted in drop box less than a day ago, which we have all had a chance to read and consider carefully. I do not think that there is any need for an editorially updated doc. Best Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 17 September 2014 16:31 To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Dear Mr. Arasteh .. I’m not debating your request, I just noticed I typo in my below email that I wish to correct .. I meant to say “… I hope there is no need for an editorially updated doc. …” Just thought it’s worth noting .. apologies for the inconvenience .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:03 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: joseph alhadeff; WUKnoben; Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Alissa, Once again I request to post the draft with new name final draft for conference call Kavouss 2014-09-17 16:34 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>: Thank you all for your replies, comments and clarification of the need for paragraph 4 referenced below .. I would just like to note that: - I have not edited the version shared by Alissa to be used on the call .. The final draft is already there untouched .. so I hope there is need for an editorially updated doc. with new reference called Draft for Conference call .. - I have sent my remarks over email as wisely suggested by Alissa to avoid such confusion .. I thought this is going to be equally good, if not better, to sharing them over the call .. - I have already mentioned at the very beginning that I’m flexible to revert to the original text if so agreed .. Looking forward to our call later today .. Kind Regards --Manal From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:37 PM To: WUKnoben; Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 I am sympathetic to the concern raised by Kavous that we need a stable draft to consider on the call so that everyone will have had an opportunity to review.... there will be opportunities on the call to raise any residual concerns. can we at least suggest that at least 4 hours before the call a final draft for consideration will be posted so that we are all on the same page? On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Thanks Manal, I’ve inserted my comments in red Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM To: Alissa Cooper<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. - I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist... I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages ☺ .. be courageous if you are not convinced... Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Manal I very much appreciate your efforts and collaboration. I just asked Alissa to made available a CLEAN DOC. WITH new naming Drfat on CONSENSUS BUILDING FOR conference call Kavouss 2014-09-17 16:38 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
I do hope that we can use the version posted in drop box less than a day ago, which we have all had a chance to read and consider carefully. I do not think that there is any need for an editorially updated doc.
Best
Martin
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Manal Ismail *Sent:* 17 September 2014 16:31 *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* Coordination Group
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Dear Mr. Arasteh ..
I’m not debating your request, I just noticed I typo in my below email that I wish to correct ..
I meant to say “… I hope there is no need for an editorially updated doc. …”
Just thought it’s worth noting .. apologies for the inconvenience ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:03 PM *To:* Manal Ismail *Cc:* joseph alhadeff; WUKnoben; Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Alissa,
Once again I request to post the draft with new name final draft for conference call
Kavouss
2014-09-17 16:34 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Thank you all for your replies, comments and clarification of the need for paragraph 4 referenced below ..
I would just like to note that:
- I have not edited the version shared by Alissa to be used on the call .. The final draft is already there untouched .. so I hope there is need for an editorially updated doc. with new reference called Draft for Conference call ..
- I have sent my remarks over email as wisely suggested by Alissa to avoid such confusion .. I thought this is going to be equally good, if not better, to sharing them over the call ..
- I have already mentioned at the very beginning that I’m flexible to revert to the original text if so agreed ..
Looking forward to our call later today ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:37 PM *To:* WUKnoben; Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
I am sympathetic to the concern raised by Kavous that we need a stable draft to consider on the call so that everyone will have had an opportunity to review.... there will be opportunities on the call to raise any residual concerns. can we at least suggest that at least 4 hours before the call a final draft for consideration will be posted so that we are all on the same page?
On 9/17/2014 6:59 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
Thanks Manal,
I’ve inserted my comments in red
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:34 PM
*To:* Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> ; joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> ; internal-cg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate ..
Page 1:
- 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency
- I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
you’re right re the footnote on page 1. The document can be found on https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/respectful-communication.pdf
Page 2:
- 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
- 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph ..
- I’m not sure but think para 3 is related to absent members who may be opposed whereas para 4 refers to opposed members in general. Maybe Joe can assist...
I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J ..
be courageous if you are not convinced...
Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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
At the risk of poking the bear, the paragraph proposed below for page 2 would be clearer if it gained a couple of prepositions and replaced ‘meet’ with ‘be consistent with’, ie: For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that for those views to be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet be consistent with the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. I’m not too fussed either way but the language overall could be simplified further. Narelle From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2014 8:35 PM To: Alissa Cooper; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document .. I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion .. It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language wherever deemed more appropriate .. Page 1: - 4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members' with small 'm' for consistency - I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might be my problem but worth someone else checking) .. Page 2: - 3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one or more members are not in a position to attend present at that meeting, these members may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making. Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent, there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent members should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG. - 4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the paragraph .. I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages ☺ .. Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 All, Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17: ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list). If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call. Thanks, Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote: Alissa, Colleagues: The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc. One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be: ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided . Joe On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
As noted yesterday, this is the document we’re using on the call today, redlined and clean. Thanks to Manal for sending in edits via email as suggested — we can discuss them on the call and decide whether to incorporate them. Alissa On 9/16/14, 5:39 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting
I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points.
Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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
Alissa, all, I support the document as is. Having said this of course, I do have a few comments below. The second sentence says (rather abruptly): "ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Liaison Expert do not take part in ICG decision making." Could we not instead say: "Participation in the decision making process is reserved to the full members of the ICG and hence does not include ICANN Board Liaisons or ICANN Staff". Section 2 - 3rd para: currently says: "It is important to emphasize that expressed disagreement is not, by itself, grounds for abusive behavior." I believe it would it be more clear to say: "It is important to emphasize that expressed disagreement is not, by itself, indicative of abusive behavior. At all times, ICG members should expect and hold oneself to respectful articulation of any points of disagreement. Section 3 - 3rd para., 1st sentence: for greater clarity delete "for decision making" at the end of that sentence. I have also just seen Narelle and Manal's comments and am happy with those edits as well. Finally, I would like to note my thanks to Kavouss and Manal for pulling the group of 11 together. It was a very good meeting and we were all clearly working together to reach consensus :-) (sorry, couldn't help it). Best regards, Lynn On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
As noted yesterday, this is the document we’re using on the call today, redlined and clean.
Thanks to Manal for sending in edits via email as suggested — we can discuss them on the call and decide whether to incorporate them.
Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:39 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
All,
Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept 17:
ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
Thanks, Alissa
On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa, Colleagues:
The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing... I have proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments, propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for decisions... Possible language which could be added to making decisions could be:
ICG will make all reasonable efforts to enable member stakeholder communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions. Where appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
Joe
On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
I am at another meeting I have read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every points. Please let me to ck it again and come back to you Kavouss
_______________________________________________ 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 <ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx><ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear all: I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. I have reviewed what I fervently hope is the latest stable draft of the ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, which was sent out yesterday evening by Alissa. I want to make it clear that the draft is acceptable to me in its current form. Also, I discovered three typographical errors which I can point out to anyone interested/in charge of editing, but prefer not to circulate another draft at this time to avoid confusion. Have fun with your call tomorrow and I am so sorry I cannot be there with you. Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:47 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh; joseph alhadeff; Martin Boyle Cc: Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17 Hi Kavouss, all, I have attached and uploaded a v12-MU-ALC version (redlined and clean). This builds on the version Mary sent yesterday by adding in the language suggested by Joe. The only other non-editorial edit I made was to remove the language about conducting a poll, which seemed to raise concerns. I’m fine with removing that language as long as if we want to occasionally conduct a poll (to obtain structured qualitative input on a particular question, but not to count votes), we will have that option. But I don’t think we need to write that down here, so I’m fine with removing the language. I’m happy to adopt the attached version. I think it gives us enough guidance so that we all have a shared understanding of our decision making process and objectives. Of course, as with any document drafted by committee, it is not as perfect or as elegant as we perhaps would like for it to be. While we could probably continue to tweak this document forever, I’d rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would encourage everyone to consider the document in that light and see if you think it gives us enough of a foundation to move forward with the rest of our work. My hope is that we can use the attached version as the basis for discussion on Sept 17. Alissa On 9/15/14, 2:52 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Martin, Dear Joe Deal Alissa I agreed to a greater extent to your suggestions and edits d Martin made also good edits but wanted more time to include some of my suggestions but stopped on Friday evening sending auto reply Joe sent compromise to which I agreed as he combined three suggestions I made comments awaiting his reply I have not heard from any of you since two/three days ago Please Martin or Joe or Alissa kindly put your thought together and possibly one take the initiative to include all amendments and comments However, we have no time to include new ideas or have a new draft WAITING FOR YOU KIND ACTION Regards Kavouss I agreed ,in general sense to both Mating and Joe 2014-09-15 12:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: Mary: I don't think the intent of the poll is to make a decision but more to get a sense of the members when it may not be clear from postings (recall that not all members may have shared opinions and with multiple drafts of language the current status of opinion may not be clear) ... Perhaps we could clarify language in that direction to address your concerns? Joe On 9/14/2014 6:12 PM, Mary Uduma wrote: Dear All, I wish to thank all for the much progress made on the difficult topic and work of the ICG. I have uploaded to the drop box Draft 12 building on what others have done with a few comments and minor edits. (See NIRA TECH comments). The most difficult part for me is the voting aspect as majority will always prevail in any poll. Small but significant minority may be ignored or overruled with voting. Any voting in the section dealing with Recommendation may negate our work and will not produce the desired and acceptable proposal to NTIA, again the expectation of a broad consensus of the communities will be wanting in the final report. It would be helpful if the paragraph 4(c)(iv) is rephrased or deleted. I did not provide any language though, but will be willing to do so on the 17th if need be, or any other member can help out here and suggest a language to replace it. What we need is TRUST+COMPROMISES which will result into CONSENSUS. . BR Mary Uduma On Saturday, September 13, 2014 5:41 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com><mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: I look forward to your considered reply. Best Joe Sent from my iPad On Sep 13, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Joe thanks for the time ,efforts and thoughts Aloow me to thniik over and come back to you .Perhaps the combination of both by adding your last to your previous suggestion with" in other words" could be a solution. Kavouss 2014-09-13 14:39 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: Kavous: I think it depends on the nature of the concern, that's why t needs to be on a case by case basis. For example, ICC-Basis as a whole may have wanted more testing of the proposal, but that may not be the basis for saying it is not a proposal that should be considered. I think the operational communities, because of their role, and if the nature of the objection is operational, have a different nature of objection... Perhaps a better phrasing might be: All stakeholder communities have a role in the development of the broad consensus called for; the nature, scope and breadth of support of concerns/objections within and across stakeholder communities will impact the ability of the ICG to submit a proposal that meets the requirements of the NTIA process. Concerns of an operational nature form one or more operational community would also significantly limit the ability of ICG to submit a proposal that meets the terms of the NTIA requirements. This would replace the last sentence. Its certainly not exact, but as we have found, precise terms have been beyond our reach because of the need to properly apply these principles in context... Happy to see if anyone has better words than mine... Joe On 9/13/2014 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Joe, Thank you very much for your attempt to narrow down the exting divergence. In the last sentence of added bullet Quote While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " Unquote Please kindly clarify the situation in theexample given by Martin in which IF all 5 GAC members or ALAC +ICC-BASIS object to a case Under consideration a) Does that objection significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. " b) To which of the 3 operational Communities ( names, numbers and protocol parameter ) GAC or ALAC +ICC-BASIS could be associated . In general ,your added text further clarify the matter .I am comfortable that you have maintained the concept of case by case . Awating your kind clarification Kavouss 2014-09-13 12:32 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: Colleagues: In an attempt to find a middle ground, I have attempted to address a number of the issues through small edits. for small minority, I have tried blending a number of the concepts into a new paragraph. · Determinations of consensus do not fit into a formula and the concept of what is a small minority will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder community(ies) or a subset of a or a number of communiites and the attemps that have been made to resolve those concerns/objections. While consensus of all stakeholder communities is the objective, it seems clear from the NTIA requirements, that the objection of an operational community would significantly limit the ability of the ICG to submit an acceptable consensus proposal. Other issues include a clarification of subject matter decisions (we do make decisions as to sufficiency of subject matter to meet NTIA requirement or the lack of consensus on an issue, that is beyond assembling, what we don't do is redraft the proposal), as well as Martin's question related to why polling... Hope these help. Joe On 9/12/2014 8:15 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: Thank you Kavouss. As requested, I have made specific drafting suggestions on the latest draft in drop box (although there was also a suggestion from Joe in a separate drafting thread where I have a slightly different line from him). I have left the comments in place as I think it is important that colleagues understand why I have concerns. I have not tried to change the filename: as Alissa pointed out in her mail, this should wait for a new clean draft to avoid causing confusion. Cheers Martin From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: 11 September 2014 21:34 To: Martin Boyle Cc: Alissa Cooper; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Martin I agree with most of the things that you said. However, it might be useful that you suggest a revision marked text and move all of your comments to the covering. It seems that at least I have sympathy for many of your thoughts but prefer to see your text possibly not coming back to square one. No one believes that anyone else should be excluded. A team work means everybody should be given the opportunity to comment. What bothers me is that some people want to restrict the process to only three operational communities .While we agree that their interest should be met but we want to give opportunity to others I am happy that you also agree to maintain the case by case approach. Waiting your editorial and other sort of amendment in a revision mark approach not introducing square bracket and comments in the margin SUGGEST CONCRETE AMENDMENTS and give the name to the file as you wish However, I wish to reiterate that I would have serious difficulties if one focus on a particular case or particular community or the language and approach used by a particular community We need to be general and cover every body's case Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (9)
-
Alissa Cooper -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark -
WUKnoben