<HTML><HEAD>
<STYLE type=text/css>p { margin: 0; }</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Yes, this is the intention. Quorum of members shall apply only in case a
decision is due. Meeting attendance in general is a different aspect. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">We’re going
to deal with more and more details which may be important to fix depending on
how we want to proceed. One example could be proxy for members being absent from
a meeting.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">To consider
all communities in the way I’ve suggested may impose a problem to those
represented by just 1 member (ASO, ICC/BASIS). In these cases proxy could
help.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">Throughout
our discourse various levels have been put forward to reach quorum or decision.
In the paper attached I’ve tried to make it more transparent and comparable re
numbers and “quality” of these figures. Maybe it could be
complemented.<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=joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com
href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">Joe Alhadeff</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:51 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk
href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=internal-cg@icann.org
href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</A> ; <A
title=alissa@cooperw.in href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</A> ;
<A title=Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de
href="mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de">Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building</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 style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman; COLOR: #000000">I
think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's
comments.<BR><BR>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.<BR>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?<BR><BR>Joe<BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From:
Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk<BR>To: alissa@cooperw.in,
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de, internal-cg@icann.org<BR>Sent: Wednesday,
September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern<BR>Subject: Re:
[Internal-cg] consensus building<BR><BR>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@icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03
September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re:
[Internal-cg] consensus building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On
9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <WOLF-ULRICH.KNOBEN @T-ONLINE.DE>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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<BR>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
</WOLF-ULRICH.KNOBEN@T-ONLINE.DE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>