[Internal-cg] consensus building

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
In order to facilitate your tasks
I have included my earlier amendment in the doc. as labeled V5  rev ka 04
Sept  as attached
Kavouss


2014-09-04 5:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's
> comments.
>
> 1.  Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to
> voting/ultimate decision-making.  In its normal usage it also applies to
> when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members.
> 2.  I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also
> believe that we need to consider all communities.  Is there a way to keep
> the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead?
>
> Joe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
> To: alissa at cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de,
> internal-cg at icann.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
>
> Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this
> discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed
> it. I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft
> attached and placed in drop-box. Best Martin -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich
> Knoben; internal-cg at icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus
> building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM,
> "WUKnoben"  wrote: > >* “small minority”: should further be discussed. I
> added > the condition that a recommendation is not reached if at least one
> of >the ICG > communities (according to the list) as a whole is firmly and
> formally >opposed. > That would mean a formal written objection by the
> community >leadership on > behalf of their community. > I’m not sure this
> matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had
> suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After
> enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate
> objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority
> disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected
> that the representatives of an operational community significantly and
> directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
> Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing
> list Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140904/96ace316/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 + MB,v6 of KA ,04 SEPT ,20124.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 90624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140904/96ace316/ICG-ConsensusBuilding_draft_v5MBv6ofKA04SEPT20124.doc>