<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Thank you for preparing this useful threshold but I do not understand its implication and or application</div><div>I am in favour of 2/3 or 4/5 majority for quorum and for decision making</div>
<div>.</div><div>See my proposal V6 KA </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-04 19:15 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de" target="_blank">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">No, I don't think this is possible according to the "rules" under which the ICG has been established.<br>
<br>
Just proxies between ICG members.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Wolf-Ulrich<br>
<br>
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Joseph Alhadeff<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 7:09 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a> ; <a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de" target="_blank">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a> ; <a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a><br>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] consensus building<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
By a proxy do you mean another icc member who would be able to participate if there's a conflicted time for the principal?<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (<a href="http://www.nitrodesk.com" target="_blank">www.nitrodesk.com</a>)<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
<br>
From: WUKnoben [<a href="mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de" target="_blank">wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.<u></u>de</a>]<br>
Received: Thursday, 04 Sep 2014, 8:03PM<br>
To: Joe Alhadeff [<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>]; <a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a> [<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>]<br>
CC: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a>]; <a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a> [<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>]<br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
<br>
From: Joe Alhadeff<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:51 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a> ; <a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a> ; <a href="mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de" target="_blank">Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building<br>
<br>
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: <a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>, <a href="mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de" target="_blank">Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de</a><u></u>, <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a><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: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@<u></u>icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a> 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 ______________________________<u></u>_________________ Internal-cg mailing list <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________ Internal-cg mailing list <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/internal-cg</a> <br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>