<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div name="messageBodySection">You are absolutely right.<br />
<br />
But, our Charter does not say Majority, it says "Consensus" and "Full Consensus" which only leaves "No Consensus" whatever the size of Majority.<br />
<br />
And hence, I read the poll as "No Consensus".</div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br />
el</div>
<div name="messageReplySection"><br />
On 24 Feb 2016, 12:36 +0200, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>, wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Eberhard,<br />
<br />
I don’t think it is relevant at all whom’s objection or what size of<br />
group’s opinion is originally at the basis of a majority opinion. It can<br />
be a single bright person spotting a problem (or an error, as in this<br />
case) everyone else failed to see, for all I care.<br />
<br />
“a small fraction changes that for us"? Maybe you did not mean the poll,<br />
but it is now the decisive factor. Check the numbers; nowhere near a<br />
“small fraction”<br />
<br />
Best,<br />
<br />
Roelof<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On 23-02-16 15:44, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.NA> wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Roelof,<br />
<br />
I didn't mean the poll, I meant the Board Objection cum Minority<br />
Opinion and Resolution that gave rise to this.<br />
<br />
With regards to your other messages, I believe that process matters.<br />
<br />
First of all the Board (and Staff) should not have polled in the CCWG<br />
on this issue created by the Board.<br />
<br />
Secondly that two Board Members (one of them the CEO) do not register<br />
as Participant but nevertheless poll as Participants bothers me on<br />
principle.<br />
<br />
Thirdly this is now the second time that we had Consensus on something<br />
and a small fraction changes that for us. That bothers me. And not<br />
only on principle.<br />
<br />
el<br />
<br />
On 2016-02-23 16:07, Roelof Meijer wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">Eberhard,<br />
<br />
Check the poll results, it¹s not the board. CCWG members are<br />
objecting to the inclusion of section (2).<br />
<br />
I am offering theory nor explanation, but strangely enough, most of<br />
those not objecting to its inclusion are (NCSG) participants, not<br />
members of the CCWG<br />
<br />
Best,<br />
<br />
Roelof<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On 23-02-16 13:25, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on<br />
behalf of Dr Eberhard W Lisse"<br />
<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<br />
el@lisse.na> wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote type="cite">So have your colleagues on the Board pull their objection.<br />
<br />
<br />
el<br />
<br />
On 2016-02-23 14:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite">My only recommendation to all parties is please, be flexible enough<br />
to find a fair compromise to enable moving forward. You have agreed<br />
99 %. It would be a shame if in the last minute a remaining<br />
controversial issue blocks the historical agreement.<br />
<br />
Wolfgang<br /></blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br />
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br />
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br />
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br />
<br /></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
--<br />
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<br />
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: <a dir="ltr" href="tel:+264%2081%20124%206733" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="12">+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)<br />
PO Box 8421 \ /<br />
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br />
<br /></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>