Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Off list: I've lost a bit of the thread... Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for? Joe On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need
to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <%2B61%207%203858%203100>
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having
the
secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Off list: I've lost a bit of the thread... Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for? Joe On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need
to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <%2B61%207%203858%203100>
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having
the
secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Alissa, Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org>
Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need
to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <%2B61%207%203858%203100>
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having
the
secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavouss, all, Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement. On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group. Thanks, Alissa On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa, Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org>
Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP .
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
what Milton agreed was on consensus building process.
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100>
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Milton, > Thank you again for yr analysis > Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion > Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. > By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? > tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you > Kavouss > > > 2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: > After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates . > > We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Dear Manal > >> , > >> I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the > adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " > >> I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the > activities . > >> This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process > .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of > ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and > in-depth > >> Tks > >> Kavouss > >> > >> > >> 2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: > >> This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause > “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought > 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to > work through the operational communities processes: > >> > >> - to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down > decision-making authority, and > >> > >> - to make sure their contributions are considered early > within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party > >> > >> Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it > does not serve the purpose of the first bullet .. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> > >> --Manal > >> > >> > >> > >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM > >> To: Milton L Mueller > >> > >> > >> Cc: Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Milton, > >> > >> Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most > knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of > message. > >> > >> Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes > our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that > we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the > adjective LIGHT. > >> > >> > >> > >> Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to > coordination without any qualification. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Kavouss > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>: > >> > >> My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes: > >> > >> > >> > >> Would prefer to keep “light” in there. > >> > >> OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments > >> > >> OK to replace “direct” with “forward” > >> > >> OK to replace “encourages” with “urges” > >> > >> > >> > >> Milton L Mueller > >> > >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > >> > >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies > >> > >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle > >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM > >> To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg > >> > >> > >> Cc: Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue > word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone > that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native > English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh > >> Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 > >> To: Daniel Karrenberg > >> Cc: Coordination Group > >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Alissa, > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text > consistent with each other > >> > >> See attachment > >> > >> Kavouss the l > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg > <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>: > >> > >> On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> > ... > >> >> >> > >> >> > Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and >> having the >> >> > secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement >> about its >> >> > existence) by Sept 1? > >> > >> I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections. > >> > >> Daniel > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg@icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg@icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ 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, Thanks for this: I can’t say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I’m ok to accept them all. I’d note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read “…and that all interested parties *should* get involved…”? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account. On your “separate point,” I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting. I’d go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts – that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples’ absences or travel schedules? But more important is, let’s try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)? And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion. Best Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 30 August 2014 19:13 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? Kavouss, all, Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement. On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group. Thanks, Alissa On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Alissa, Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>> Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Off list: I've lost a bit of the thread... Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for? Joe On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net<mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>>: I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need to be perfected before we do that. For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included thanks Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net<mailto:dg@apnic.net>> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100<tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100> See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net<mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building. I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3 Regards KAVOUSS 2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Alissa,
Thanks for this: I can’t say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I’m ok to accept them all. I’d note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read “…and that all interested parties **should** get involved…”? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account.
On your “separate point,” I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting.
I’d go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts – that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples’ absences or travel schedules?
But more important is, let’s try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)?
And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion.
Best
Martin
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* 30 August 2014 19:13 *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Kavouss, all,
Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement.
On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it
kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Kavouss Arasteh* <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org>
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *joseph alhadeff* <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP .
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
what Milton agreed was on consensus building process.
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
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
I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too many termsthat have too flexible an interpretation. I also think the document is lost in the comments. Can we move a next draft forward that tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better consider flow and duplication? On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building. I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3 Regards KAVOUSS
2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>:
Alissa,
Thanks for this: I can't say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I'm ok to accept them all. I'd note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read "...and that all interested parties **should** get involved..."? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account.
On your "separate point," I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting.
I'd go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts -- that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples' absences or travel schedules?
But more important is, let's try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)?
And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion.
Best
Martin
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* 30 August 2014 19:13 *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Kavouss, all,
Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the "light-handed" compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we'll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement.
On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people's response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn't have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it
kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Kavouss Arasteh* <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>>
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *joseph alhadeff* <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP .
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
what Milton agreed was on consensus building process.
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn't need to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss' suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net <mailto:dg@apnic.net>> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100>
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Milton, > Thank you again for yr analysis > Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion > Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. > By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? > tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you > Kavouss > > > 2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net <mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>>: > After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates . > > We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Dear Manal >> , >> I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " >> I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . >> This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth >> Tks >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>: >> This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause "in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role" as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes: >> >> - to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and >> >> - to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party >> >> Just thought to clarify, but I'm flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet .. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Dear Milton, >> >> Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message. >> >> Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT. >> >> >> >> Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification. >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: >> >> My opinions regarding Kavouss's proposed changes: >> >> >> >> Would prefer to keep "light" in there. >> >> OK to remove the word "only" from the paragraph on Comments >> >> OK to replace "direct" with "forward" >> >> OK to replace "encourages" with "urges" >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor >> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM >> To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I'm sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I'm happy to go. >> >> >> >> Kavouss's comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I'm ok without. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Dear Alissa, >> >> Dear All, >> >> I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other >> >> See attachment >> >> Kavouss the l >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>: >> >> On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> > ... >> >> > >> > Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the >> > secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its >> > existence) by Sept 1? >> >> I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Joseph Thank you very much for the addition. However, having carefully read what was added ,I believe ,we may not need to talk about "Cultural differences and language barriers,"due to the fact that 1. It is quite clear that members of ICG certainly have "Cultural différences" 2. Who and on what bais one could judge that another person has "language barriers,"since people express themselves differently and with differnt Policy and or diplomacy. Consequently different ways of expression or making statement should not be interpreted as "language barriers,". It would be inappropriate that someone make such value judgement 3. Statement is statement and should normally follow some code of conduct and not be made in a manner that someone lese interpreted as being " disrespectful or inappropriate" We are member of ICG and should limit ourselves to the scope of that Group and perhaps avopid to get into schology of human being I therefroe request you to kindly reconsider your addition with a view to decide that it may not be nessary as it may lead to further disdagreement . What did you decsribes .in fact, is correct but we may not need to pronouce it Regards Kavouss 2014-08-31 11:28 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too many terms that have too flexible an interpretation. I also think the document is lost in the comments. Can we move a next draft forward that tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better consider flow and duplication? On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building. I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3 Regards KAVOUSS
2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Alissa,
Thanks for this: I can’t say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I’m ok to accept them all. I’d note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read “…and that all interested parties **should** get involved…”? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account.
On your “separate point,” I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting.
I’d go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts – that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples’ absences or travel schedules?
But more important is, let’s try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)?
And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion.
Best
Martin
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* 30 August 2014 19:13 *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Kavouss, all,
Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement.
On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it
kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Kavouss Arasteh* <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org>
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *joseph alhadeff* <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP .
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
what Milton agreed was on consensus building process.
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having
the
secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
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 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
I agree with Joe that we probably need to have a clean draft to work on - it is getting hard to read. For Joe's comments I'm ok with all except the comment (j13) that "Members should also be able to request the officers to conduct a poll." That seems to open for anyone to jump a vote without allowing "adversaries" to find a happy compromise. I think it could be a barrier to getting to real consensus. Polls should be the exception and their use justified. As I've said before, I do not like voting in this framework: while I recognise it might be a necessary evil, it does undermine the consensus-development process. Cheers Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 31 August 2014 12:28 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too many terms that have too flexible an interpretation. I also think the document is lost in the comments. Can we move a next draft forward that tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better consider flow and duplication? On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building. I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3 Regards KAVOUSS 2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Alissa, Thanks for this: I can't say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I'm ok to accept them all. I'd note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read "...and that all interested parties *should* get involved..."? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account. On your "separate point," I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting. I'd go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts - that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples' absences or travel schedules? But more important is, let's try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)? And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion. Best Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 30 August 2014 19:13 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? Kavouss, all, Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the "light-handed" compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we'll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement. On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people's response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn't have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group. Thanks, Alissa On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Alissa, Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>> Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Off list: I've lost a bit of the thread... Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for? Joe On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net<mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>>: I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn't need to be perfected before we do that. For the record I agree with Kavouss' suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included thanks Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net<mailto:dg@apnic.net>> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100<tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100> See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net<mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause "in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role" as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I'm flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss's proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep "light" in there.
OK to remove the word "only" from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace "direct" with "forward"
OK to replace "encourages" with "urges"
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I'm sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I'm happy to go.
Kavouss's comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I'm ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Martin: I think its a safety valve related to when there is a disagreement as to the sense of the room and direction of consensus. It is also should not be considered a right to call a poll, but rather to request for a poll to be called... Perhaps further caveats around the language would help. Finally I am also OK with withdrawing the proposed edit related to linguistic or cultural expression and potential misunderstanding as my reservation was only as to form (what would be the best location for the comment) not substance. Joe On 9/1/2014 8:47 AM, Martin Boyle wrote:
I agree with Joe that we probably need to have a clean draft to work on -- it is getting hard to read.
For Joe's comments I'm ok with all *except* the comment (j13) that "Members should also be able to request the officers to conduct a poll." That seems to open for anyone to jump a vote without allowing "adversaries" to find a happy compromise. I think it could be a barrier to getting to real consensus. Polls should be the exception and their use justified. As I've said before, I do not like voting in this framework: while I recognise it might be a necessary evil, it does undermine the consensus-development process.
Cheers
Martin
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *joseph alhadeff *Sent:* 31 August 2014 12:28 *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too many termsthat have too flexible an interpretation. I also think the document is lost in the comments. Can we move a next draft forward that tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better consider flow and duplication?
On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized
I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building.
I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3
Regards
KAVOUSS
2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk <mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>:
Alissa,
Thanks for this: I can't say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I'm ok to accept them all. I'd note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read "...and that all interested parties **should** get involved..."? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account.
On your "separate point," I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting.
I'd go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts -- that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples' absences or travel schedules?
But more important is, let's try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)?
And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion.
Best
Martin
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* 30 August 2014 19:13 *To:* Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group
*Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Kavouss, all,
Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the "light-handed" compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we'll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement.
On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people's response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn't have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group.
Thanks,
Alissa
On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Alissa,
Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it
kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Kavouss Arasteh* <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>>
Dear All,
My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account
I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *joseph alhadeff* <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP .
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All,
Dear Alissa
what Milton agreed was on consensus building process.
What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential.
There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated.
I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft .
I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial.
However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered.
I have informed in different manner
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net>>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn't need to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss' suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net <mailto:dg@apnic.net>> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100>
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Milton, > Thank you again for yr analysis > Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion > Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. > By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? > tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you > Kavouss > > > 2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net <mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>>: > After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates . > > We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Dear Manal >> , >> I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " >> I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . >> This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth >> Tks >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>>: >> This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause "in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role" as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes: >> >> - to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and >> >> - to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party >> >> Just thought to clarify, but I'm flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet .. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Dear Milton, >> >> Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message. >> >> Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT. >> >> >> >> Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification. >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: >> >> My opinions regarding Kavouss's proposed changes: >> >> >> >> Would prefer to keep "light" in there. >> >> OK to remove the word "only" from the paragraph on Comments >> >> OK to replace "direct" with "forward" >> >> OK to replace "encourages" with "urges" >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor >> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM >> To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I'm sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I'm happy to go. >> >> >> >> Kavouss's comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I'm ok without. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Dear Alissa, >> >> Dear All, >> >> I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other >> >> See attachment >> >> Kavouss the l >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>: >> >> On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> > ... >> >> > >> > Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the >> > secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its >> > existence) by Sept 1? >> >> I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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>
Martin, I’m with you here. Poll should be very exceptional recourse. In a setup like ours, we cannot possibly cover all the corner of the decision making process specially when we have consensus as primary modus operandi. And I think that is why we have chairs AND vice-Chairs from different background to help and facilitate the consensus building. So far we have done well and I think we have had some not so straight forward issues to handle. I believe that we can achieve a lot by investing energy in building consensus and be open to find compromise to our positions - “Listening with a genuine intend to understand first". - a. On Sep 1, 2014, at 16:47 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
I agree with Joe that we probably need to have a clean draft to work on – it is getting hard to read.
For Joe’s comments I’m ok with all except the comment (j13) that “Members should also be able to request the officers to conduct a poll.” That seems to open for anyone to jump a vote without allowing “adversaries” to find a happy compromise. I think it could be a barrier to getting to real consensus. Polls should be the exception and their use justified. As I’ve said before, I do not like voting in this framework: while I recognise it might be a necessary evil, it does undermine the consensus-development process.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 31 August 2014 12:28 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too many terms that have too flexible an interpretation. I also think the document is lost in the comments. Can we move a next draft forward that tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better consider flow and duplication?
On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building. I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3 Regards KAVOUSS
2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>: Alissa,
Thanks for this: I can’t say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I’m ok to accept them all. I’d note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read “…and that all interested parties *should* get involved…”? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account.
On your “separate point,” I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting.
I’d go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts – that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples’ absences or travel schedules?
But more important is, let’s try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)?
And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion.
Best
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 30 August 2014 19:13 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Kavouss, all,
Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement.
On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group.
Thanks, Alissa
On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alissa, Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org>
Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Off list:
I've lost a bit of the thread...
Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for?
Joe
On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss
2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>:
I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need to be perfected before we do that.
For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included
thanks
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton, Thank you again for yr analysis Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you Kavouss
2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates .
We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Manal , I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth Tks Kavouss
2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes:
- to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and
- to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party
Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Milton,
Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message.
Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT.
Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification.
Regards
Kavouss
2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes:
Would prefer to keep “light” in there.
OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments
OK to replace “direct” with “forward”
OK to replace “encourages” with “urges”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go.
Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft?
Dear Alissa,
Dear All,
I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other
See attachment
Kavouss the l
2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
...
Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its existence) by Sept 1?
I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Sorry for my absence over the last days! I’m just trying to catch up with all the information and comments exchanged regarding the consensus building document and put it together to a “clean draft” we can furtheron work with. I hope it will be ready later today. I’ve recognised that different threads are in use for the topic (e.g. “RFP”) which is adding confusion. Please return to “consensus building” in the reference line. Thanks for your comments and best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Martin Boyle Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 2:47 PM To: joseph alhadeff ; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? I agree with Joe that we probably need to have a clean draft to work on – it is getting hard to read. For Joe’s comments I’m ok with all except the comment (j13) that “Members should also be able to request the officers to conduct a poll.” That seems to open for anyone to jump a vote without allowing “adversaries” to find a happy compromise. I think it could be a barrier to getting to real consensus. Polls should be the exception and their use justified. As I’ve said before, I do not like voting in this framework: while I recognise it might be a necessary evil, it does undermine the consensus-development process. Cheers Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 31 August 2014 12:28 To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? I have added some proposed edits and comments. I agree that we have too many terms that have too flexible an interpretation. I also think the document is lost in the comments. Can we move a next draft forward that tries to incorporate some of these comments and allows us to better consider flow and duplication? On 8/31/2014 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Now that we have reconciled on RFP as announced by Alissa to have been finalized I want to come back to come back to Consensus Building. I the meantime I have amended the proposals that I made based on some comments and attached here for your kind consideration as ka v3 Regards KAVOUSS 2014-08-30 23:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>: Alissa, Thanks for this: I can’t say any of these changes really make much difference to the text as far as I am concerned so, although I still would prefer the original wording I’m ok to accept them all. I’d note that on page 2 the first sentence in the first paragraph under I does not read right to me: should it read “…and that all interested parties *should* get involved…”? But please do not hold this up this draft any further on my account. On your “separate point,” I would agree that there needs to be a certain time lapse between drafts to allow for all comments to come in. Two days can actually mean only a day and a half with time-zones and accidents on time of posting. I’d go back to a point that NZ-Keith made about decisions on conference calls and re-think it for discussion drafts – that there should be time for proposals and counter-proposals on any draft, followed by a complete clean copy incorporating any amendments from the discussion. The important stage is how long a clean draft is on the table without any further comments before it is adopted: could we make it 3 days for this phase (unless all protagonists in the discussion have agreed with the suggested compromise), which allows for peoples’ absences or travel schedules? But more important is, let’s try not to rush from one draft to another unless there is a good reason (like the page is getting too cluttered to read)? And let us all also remember that we all have our own views and that these will often be at odds: when we propose a change, there should be a decent time for others to consider this idea and to formulate a response. I have been in the position where I have been drafting a commentary on one draft when the next has dropped into the box: very frustrating! But also, this is not very conducive to coherent discussion. Best Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 30 August 2014 19:13 To: Kavouss Arasteh; Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? Kavouss, all, Attached and in dropbox are v14-alc-ka-alc and v14-alc-ka-alc-clean. These contain the changes suggested by Kavouss and the “light-handed” compromise suggested by Milton. As soon as we get the link to the centralized information portal from Alice (which we need on page 1 of the RFP), we’ll get the secretariat to post this version on the web site and make an announcement. On a separate note, it might make sense to spend a little time at the Sept 6 meeting talking about expectations for people’s response times to emails, document reviews, etc. As I have already noted on this list, in my opinion allowing at least 48 hours for responses during the week and 72 hours for responses over a weekend is justified by the fact that we are all busy people volunteering our time for this activity. In the case of this particular document, the edits from Kavouss arrived in my inbox at 5:30am in my time zone on Friday, while I was asleep. I woke up a few hours later, answered some other emails (since I knew we wouldn’t have the portal link ready before I got on my flights to Turkey) and left for the airport to travel to Istanbul at 9:00am. I spent 24 of the 26 hours since then in transit. If people expect faster response times, that is something we should discuss as a group. Thanks, Alissa On 8/30/14, 5:36 AM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Alissa, Please advise whether or not after several support to my proposal as contained/ mentioned in rev 2 that I did send you three days ago , v14 is now amended or not Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 14:31 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal to ignor it kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-08-30 14:30 GMT+02:00 Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Coordination Group <Internal-cg@icann.org> Dear All, My rev 2 doc. relating to amenfment to v 14 of Draft RFP has not been taken into account I think it is not fair withourt examining a proposal it should be ignored Kavouss ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Date: 2014-08-30 11:35 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Off list: I've lost a bit of the thread... Which of your proposed edits s the one that hasn't been properly accounted for? Joe On 8/30/2014 3:31 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Dear Alissa What Milton agreed was on consensus building process and not on RFP . What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, Dear Alissa what Milton agreed was on consensus building process. What we are talking here is RFP. I have made some changes which are not of editorial nature but essential. There are inconsistencies in the v14 as I have indicated. I have sent that twice and I request to be considered before being published as draft . I am not in the little group nevertheless the amendment that I have proposed are essebntial. However, should every body agree that the draft should be published I have no problem provided that everybody understand that the amendments proposed by me are still valid and to be considered. I have informed in different manner Regards Kavouss 2014-08-30 7:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>: I am keen to publish the draft, as a draft, soon please. It doesn’t need to be perfected before we do that. For the record I agree with Kavouss’ suggestions, as amended by Milton, and happy for these to be included thanks Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 30 Aug 2014, at 4:26 am, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > Milton, > Thank you again for yr analysis > Yes I could make a consensus with your last suggestion > Pls go ahead and I thank you for that. > By the way do you know any ting about a book published in 70 s about that group? > tks and have a nice week-end ,if I do not hear from you > Kavouss > > > 2014-08-29 20:12 GMT+02:00 Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net>: > After reviewing Kavouss RFP updates, I prefer to keep the text " light coordination role" and I am fine with the rest of the updates . > > We suppose to finished and published the RFP yesterday, I propose move ahead and publish the latest version as agreed before the IGF. > > Kind Regards, > Mohamed > > On 29 Aug 2014, at 19:47, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Manal >> , >> I am not pointing toward any one who made the suggestion that the adjective " Light " being added to the word or term " Coordination " >> I am just saysing that ICG tasks . interalia, is to coordinate the activities . >> This does not any thing to do with TOP down or button up process .Just it does not feet. It give the impression that the activities of ICCG on this matter is a light activitiwes and not a complete and in-depth >> Tks >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2014-08-29 19:10 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: >> This was not the intention of course .. I have inserted this clause “in order to help ICG maintain its light coordination role” as I thought 2 things would make it more convincing for non-operational parties to work through the operational communities processes: >> >> - to make sure the ICG does not have a top-down decision-making authority, and >> >> - to make sure their contributions are considered early within the process, and directly discussed with the relevant party >> >> Just thought to clarify, but I’m flexible should colleagues feel it does not serve the purpose of the first bullet .. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> >> --Manal >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 6:45 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Dear Milton, >> >> Thank you very much for your kind response .You are among the most knowledgeable and competent as far as I understand the exchange of message. >> >> Pls kindly note that the term LIGHT before coordination, weakenes our actions .It could be interpreted that the coordination actions that we undertake is not sufficiently serious as it is qualified by the adjective LIGHT. >> >> >> >> Would it cause any difficulty that we delete that and just refer to coordination without any qualification. >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 15:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>: >> >> My opinions regarding Kavouss’s proposed changes: >> >> >> >> Would prefer to keep “light” in there. >> >> OK to remove the word “only” from the paragraph on Comments >> >> OK to replace “direct” with “forward” >> >> OK to replace “encourages” with “urges” >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor >> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:46 AM >> To: Kavouss Arasteh; Daniel Karrenberg >> >> >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Thanks Alissa for your work on this. I’m sure we could continue word-smithing this for a long time, and I’m happy to go. >> >> >> >> Kavouss’s comment on light: I like the term as it reminds everyone that we are not planning to play the autocrats. But if non-native English speakers find the meaning obscure I’m ok without. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh >> Sent: 29 August 2014 13:32 >> To: Daniel Karrenberg >> Cc: Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP - publishable draft? >> >> >> >> Dear Alissa, >> >> Dear All, >> >> I suggest some small amendments to make various parts of the text consistent with each other >> >> See attachment >> >> Kavouss the l >> >> >> >> 2014-08-29 13:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>: >> >> On 28.08.14 23:36 , Alissa Cooper wrote: >> > ... >> >> > >> > Are there any objections to publishing this as a draft (and having the >> > secretariat host it on our web site and make an announcement about its >> > existence) by Sept 1? >> >> I support publishing this as a daft with Elise's corrections. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________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 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
participants (6)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
WUKnoben