Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
This was a good summary. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma@yahoo.com]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]; Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Dear All .. As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that: - Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus .. - Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA - A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided - Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections) - Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities) ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically: - Stresses the need for reaching consensus - Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part - Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis - List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend .. Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page .. Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like: 1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph. 2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read : Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed. 3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;' 4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted. Safe trip everyone. Mary Uduma On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: OOOOsh!!!! Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton. Please ignore my last unfinished mail. Mary On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote: Jari , Arasteh and All, Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version. I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities. In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like: On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote: And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 (for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.) Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari 2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
This was a good summary.
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma@yahoo.com]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]; Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari to allow that we limit the scope of the document to ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE at this stage due to the fact that we clearly mention that we treat the matter on which .after that all efforts are exhausred on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. I suggest we do not refer to IETF EXAMPLE SINCE OTHER WANTS TO ALSO REFER TO THEIR EXAMPLES . If you have editorial or structural improvement ,please go ahead but kindly limit the content with that example which emanated from the previous discussion on which most of you agreed ( even though I disagreed but I join the consensus and agree with that single example) I wait one or two days and then provide you with summary of all proposals on the sole condition that no example of any community be added to the single example that already contined in the document Regards Kavouss ,coordinator of G11 2014-09-07 23:45 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari
2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
This was a good summary.
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma@yahoo.com]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]; Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
From Kavouss Arasteh
Dear distinguished G11 Dear distinguished ICG Members I read all 14 messages It seems we are coming back to square one. That is disappointing People start to write from the scratch –That is also a pity I suggest that we do not make any addition to what I sent you on 07 September as it was identical to the initial draft v5 with the exception that I had deleted reference to quorum and reference quantitative threshold for majority I strongly recommend that we just agree to the framework of what we have agreed on 06 September at G11 meeting and not to expand the scope of the document e.g. to deal with absentee as some of you added or the nature of the meeting ,whether it is intended to make the final decision or make an intermediate decision We do not need all these details since devil is in the details. Let us stick to the just case by case principle, That one possible example that is included was merely one possible example We do not need to give other examples as we would have ample opportunity to explore other possible example according to the case on which decision is required . Please kindly limit your comments to purely editorial , gramatic correction and/or structural edits without any change on substance We have sufficiently discussed the matter for almost 2 months and have had major problem reghrads Kavouss - ------------------------------ [1] Other best practices that can be considered include the ‘Statement on Respectful Online Communication’, see http://www.odr.info/comments.php?id=A1767_0_1_0_C. <http://www.odr.info/comments.php?id=A1767_0_1_0_C> ------------------------------ [j1]Is this still relevant ? [W2]To be discussed at the F2F meeting [MB3]I do not support this deletion [W4]Agree to MB12. It should turn out from the discussion how serious the objection is. [MB5]“Are” is correct in the current formulation. “Is” would require “objection” 2014-09-07 23:53 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari to allow that we limit the scope of the document to ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE at this stage due to the fact that we clearly mention that we treat the matter on which .after that all efforts are exhausred on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. I suggest we do not refer to IETF EXAMPLE SINCE OTHER WANTS TO ALSO REFER TO THEIR EXAMPLES . If you have editorial or structural improvement ,please go ahead but kindly limit the content with that example which emanated from the previous discussion on which most of you agreed ( even though I disagreed but I join the consensus and agree with that single example) I wait one or two days and then provide you with summary of all proposals on the sole condition that no example of any community be added to the single example that already contined in the document Regards Kavouss ,coordinator of G11
2014-09-07 23:45 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari
2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
This was a good summary.
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma@yahoo.com]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net]; Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavous: We all agreed at the meeting during conversations on providing a window of opportunity for those not present at a decision to have a period of time to consider decisions. This is not meant to replace a quorum, but it is what was discussed and agreed at the meeting of the entire ICG, so it needs to be in the document. Best- Joe On 9/7/2014 6:34 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
From Kavouss Arasteh
Dear distinguished G11
Dear distinguished ICG Members
I read all 14 messages
It seems we are coming back to square one. That is disappointing
People start to write from the scratch –That is also a pity
I suggest that we do not make any addition to what I sent you on 07 September as it was identical to the initial draft v5 with the exception that I had deletedreference to quorum and reference quantitative threshold for majority
I strongly recommend that we just agree to the framework of what we have agreed on 06 September at G11 meeting and not to expand the scope of the document e.g. to deal with absentee as some of you added or the nature of the meeting ,whether it is intended to make the final decision or make an intermediate decision
We do not need all these details since devil is in the details.
Let us stick to the just case by case principle,
That one possible example that is included was merely one possible example
We do not need to give other examples as we would have ample opportunity to explore other possible example according to the case on which decision is required .
Please kindly limit your comments to purely editorial , gramatic correction and/or structural edits without any change on substance
We have sufficiently discussed the matter for almost 2 months and have had major problem
reghrads
Kavouss
*
//
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Otherbestpracticesthatcanbeconsideredincludethe‘StatementonRespectfulOnlineCommunication’,seehttp://www.odr.info/comments.php?id=A1767_0_1_0_C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[j1]Is this still relevant ?
[W2]To be discussed at the F2F meeting
[MB3]I do not support this deletion
[W4]Agree to MB12. It should turn out from the discussion how serious the objection is.
[MB5]“Are” is correct in the current formulation.“Is” would require “objection”
2014-09-07 23:53 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari to allow that we limit the scope of the document to ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE at this stage due to the fact that we clearly mention that we treat the matter on which .after that all efforts are exhausred on a CASE BY CASE BASIS. I suggest we do not refer to IETF EXAMPLE SINCE OTHER WANTS TO ALSO REFER TO THEIR EXAMPLES . If you have editorial or structural improvement ,please go ahead but kindly limit the content with that example which emanated from the previous discussion on which most of you agreed ( even though I disagreed but I join the consensus and agree with that single example) I wait one or two days and then provide you with summary of all proposals on the sole condition that no example of any community be added to the single example that already contined in the document Regards Kavouss ,coordinator of G11
2014-09-07 23:45 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear All As coordinator of G11,I would like to appeal to all of you that not to expand the content of document as I sent you on and with small edits on 07 Ept. I request Jari
2014-09-07 19:57 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>:
This was a good summary.
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com <http://www.nitrodesk.com>)
-----Original Message-----
From: Manal Ismail [manal@tra.gov.eg <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>] Received: Sunday, 07 Sep 2014, 6:31AM To: Mary Uduma [mnuduma@yahoo.com <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com>]; Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>]; Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Dear All ..
As one of those who have attended the 'consensus building' discussion during the coffee break after the meeting, allow me to clarify that more than 10 ICG members joined the discussion and almost everyone agreed that:
- Utmost efforts should be exerted to reach consensus ..
- Not reaching consensus would weaken the proposal submitted to the NTIA
- A situation where one person can block the whole process should be avoided
- Minority views, no matter how few, should be evaluated qualitatively (based on the merit of the objections) not quantitatively (based on the number of objections)
- Consensus here refers to decisions related to the handling and assembling of submitted proposals not decisions related to approval/disapproval of content of the proposals (which if needed may then be referred back to the relevant communities)
ICG members who were present agreed in principle on the proposal suggested by Mr Arasteh, which basically:
- Stresses the need for reaching consensus
- Delete the controversial minority/quorum part of the text from this part
- Defer decision on how to handle the unlikely situation of not being able to reach a consensus way forward, to be decided upon on a case by case basis
- List examples of alternative means that ICG may choose to follow .. this includes the text on minority as well as the IETF document, circulated by Jari, that describes the rough consensus process, particularly how to deal with different opinions
So apologies to those who were not in the room and did not have the chance to attend ..
Hope this summary, subject to corrections or additions by other present colleagues, provides the necessary background to put us all on the same page ..
Thanks to Mr Arasteh for the suggested text and to all ICG members who were present for the constructive exchange ..
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 Mary Uduma Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 3:21 AM To: Jari Arkko; Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building discussion
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow the trend of discussions with correct documents. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version of the document. It is a bit confusing.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version and formulations, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each of the communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words and paragraphs like:
1. Purpose: " Laison " should read 'Liaison' in the second paragraph.
2. Individual/Group Behavior and Norms: Last paragraph 1st sentence should read :
Public comments received as a result of any forum held by the ICG in relation to its activities should be duly considered and carefully analyzed.
3. Last para in 4b after the bullet points should read ''Following these basic principles, the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as one of the following;'
4. 4b under Recommendation ......cannot be reach-.... should read ....cannot be reached....... The two paragraphs after the last bullet point are no longer necessary, they should be deleted.
Safe trip everyone.
Mary Uduma
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:09 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com>> wrote:
OOOOsh!!!!
Sleeping and typing, hit the wrong botton.
Please ignore my last unfinished mail.
Mary
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 2:07 AM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com <mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Jari , Arasteh and All,
Kindly make it easier for us to follow. I was about to congratulate the Group of 11 (G11) and all ICG members when Alice's mail came in with the old version.
I think we have progressed positively with the G11's version, please let us not go back to the old version, reason being that ICG members are errand boys of the communities. The power to object regarding any part of the proposal to NTIA is with each communities.
In addition, the version looks balanced, what is left will be to do the minor edits and remove some redundant words like:
On Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:21 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>> wrote:
And in the after-the-meeting discussion I promised to send a link to the IETF document that describes the rough consensus process. Here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
(for the purposes of the ICG decision process, the important bit is how we deal with differing opinions, not the humming. so read it in that light.)
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (2)
-
Joseph Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh