[Internal-cg] Consensus building process

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Mon Aug 11 06:33:53 UTC 2014

On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:

> The chair’s designation that consensus is reached is not her/his own decision rather than a wrap-up of extensive discussions. Of course this designation can be challenged by members. And this is what triggers your question about “If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given ...”. I’m open to any helpful suggestion on how we could procede in such a case.
> In the end consensus - as defined – has to be achieved.

Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly agree with.

We must deliver.

This implies we must be able to reach consensus.

The last couple of weeks discussions on various topics makes me a bit pessimistic on the ability for us to reach consensus, but I am optimistic, always optimistic, on peoples ability and interest in actually deliver.

Remember that the chair is calling on the consensus question, not the substance. That way the power of the chair is decreased to a minimum and process issues.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140811/5287038e/signature.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list