<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Thanks Kavouss,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">you are
right, there should be a mechanism imposed to settle the consensus designation
dispute. Voting could be one means whereby the voting scheme has to be
defined.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">Maybe there
are other ideas...<BR><BR>Best regards<BR><BR>Wolf-Ulrich<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">Kavouss Arasteh</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 11, 2014 10:40 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=paf@frobbit.se href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">Patrik
Fältström</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de
href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">WUKnoben</A> ; <A
title=internal-cg@icann.org href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">Coordination
Group</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus building
process</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>Dear Wolf</DIV>
<DIV>Thank you very much for reply</DIV>
<DIV>My point is that if one or more ICG Mmember(s) is7are againszt the ruling
of the Chir ,They could raise their issue and the matter must be settled by
simple explanation or if not resolved by voting . I.E. CHAIR DOES NOT HAVE
DECISION MAKING POWER ON HE OR HIS OWN WISHES RATHER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VIEWS
OF MEMBERS</DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV>KAVOUSS </DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2014-08-11 8:33 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se"
target=_blank>paf@frobbit.se</A>></SPAN>:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV><BR>On 11 aug 2014, at 08:09, WUKnoben <<A
href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>> 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.<BR>> In the end consensus - as defined – has to be
achieved.<BR><BR></DIV>Let me emphasize what you say here, which I strongly
agree with.<BR><BR>We must deliver.<BR><BR>This implies we must be able to
reach consensus.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><SPAN class=HOEnZb><FONT color=#888888><BR>
Patrik<BR><BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>