[Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list

Thu Jun 11 11:31:26 UTC 2015

Patrik 
Tks for your comprehensive reply
What I do not want to do  is to act on contradiction with  our Charter. And to do something which technically inefficient
It seems that  some people are in hurry and wished yo make transition as of  yesterday,
I have lid ten to then carefully I know them and their organisation/community since many years. I have listen to their views in webinars. They want total independence. They have stated that between transition and independence they opt for the second.
I do not want unilateral proclamation of independence. We must work together.
By the  way I was terribly and incorrectly treated yesterday by the chair.
I do no longer allow any one no natter at what position he or she is interrupt my intervention in an aggressive and offensive manner.
I no longer tolerate such misbehaviour  
Regards
MR Arasteh     
/ 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:07, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kavouss,
> 
> I do not think you and Alissa (and myself) do disagree on how ICG can do its work as efficient as possible. I think we might misunderstand each other. Let me try to explain what I hear.
> 
> First, given Paul did rise the issue, regardless of how much he is in minority, and given the reaction, I see as co-chair of ICG that we need to talk about this issue. I am not the one that tell people to not rise whatever issues they want. So, we obviously have to talk about it again. And if there is, as many did point out in the chat, consensus for a specific path forward (which I do believe we are following btw), the discussion should not need to take so long time.
> 
> Secondly, regarding what can be viewed as "multiple steps", I claim ICG have discussed, do agree, and should try to move forward as far as possible with the material we have -- BUT NOT LONGER.
> 
> As Alissa explained on the call, one step we can NOT move forward with before we have responses from all three OC is the public consultation. So there is no disagreement there.
> 
> What I think we can do is to discuss what the structure of our document should be and other things. Yes, we risk have to redo that work when we get the final proposal from CWG names, but I am prepared on taking that risk. We can gain so much time by preparing that I feel we should allow us to do that.
> 
> If we did nothing before we had all three OC proposals, we should in the extreme not have any telephone conferences or email conversation -- which of course would be strange.
> 
> So, the only thing we seem to disagree on is whether we should allow Paul to make his point and other ICG members to respond to it -- including the ability to reference earlier discussions in ICG. I feel as co-chair I must support such a thing, because "just saying no" to an ICG member rising a point is not healthy for us.
> 
> If we do have consensus for a different path than what the ICG member is rising, the discussion should be short, and because of that, we can allow the discussion to take place.
> 
>   Patrik
> 
>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 8:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> 
>> Alissa
>> I do not understand the objectives of Multistep Implementation at all I disagreed with that .A healthy discussion neither allowed  .
>> I strongly oppose to any action which is unilaterally raised and in particular, if it is not consistent t with our Charter.
>> Moreover, the issue of implementation is a complex matter and encompasses the authority of ICG
>> KAVOUSS
>> 
>> 
>> 2015-06-10 21:40 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please find the two lists below:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Summary of Decisions Taken:
>>> 
>>> 1.       Secretariat to publish approved minutes for ICG Call 16 and 17.
>>> 
>>> Summary of Action Items:
>>> 
>>> 1.       Cooper to write back to the CRISP Team to ask for a substantive
>>> update regarding implementation timeline by 17 June (before ICG
>>> Face-to-Face Meeting 5).
>>> 
>>> 2.       Boyle to follow up with the CWG-IANA co-chairs re parallelizing
>>> the implementation steps, and any further clarification in terms of overall
>>> timeframe.
>>> 
>>> 3.       Cooper to circulate the outline of the combined proposal preface
>>> (noting that there will be missing pieces due to not having received the
>>> Names proposal yet) to the drafting team before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5.
>>> 
>>> 4.       ICG Chairs, with assistance from the Secretariat, to add to the
>>> ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot for the ICG to
>>> further discuss Wilson’s proposal for a multi-step implementation of the
>>> final combined proposal.
>>> 
>>> 5.       ICG Chairs to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a
>>> discussion time slot to discuss possible ICG talking points at ICANN
>>> sessions.
>>> 
>>> 6.       Fältström and Mundy, as the representatives of SSAC, to share
>>> their pre-assessment of the Names Proposal to the internal-cg mailing list
>>> next week.
>>> 
>>> 7.       Cooper to draft questions and send more information regarding
>>> the ICG public comment period and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list
>>> before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jennifer
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org