[CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Besides that ALAC members have not show to be reliable, I do not believe we can go that road, ie exclude participants from decision making. As much as I personally would like it.

The below quote means to me that if there is no or little dissent, that's that. But if there is so much dissent by members and/or participants that a determination needs to be made, only the members would be asked.

But, why are we discussing this? So far "they" were/was the Co-Chair(s).

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 29 Dec 2015, at 23:32, Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Got it
> Fine with me
>  
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 4:18 PM
> To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>; avri at acm.org
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
>  
> I was using "vote" implying to determine a level of consensus. The critical part is that it is a process involving Members (but not participants).
> -- 
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> On December 29, 2015 3:50:14 PM EST, "Chartier, Mike S" <mike.s.chartier at intel.com> wrote:
> Alan,
>                Can you point out where the Charter gives voting rights to members? The relevant text below seems to say just the opposite.
> In developing its Proposal(s), work plan and any other reports, the CCWG-Accountability shall seek to act by consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve all members (the CCWG-Accountability or sub-working group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: 
> a)     Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
> b)     Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree 
> In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report. 
> In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a recommendation. However, care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes, as there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.
>  
> Thanks,
> Mike
>  
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:18 PM
> To: Chartier, Mike S <mike.s.chartier at intel.com>; avri at acm.org
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Work plan in January
>  
> I read the "they" as being the formally appointed CCWG Members, to whom the charter gives voting rights.
> 
> Alan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151230/b9b1d22f/attachment-0001.html>