[Internal-cg] Consensus building process

[Kavouss Arasteh]

 Dear All,
Every moment we received a new thought.
Somebody stated that
The Role of the chair is purely administrative and NOT DECISION MAKING
Another person stated that
Quote
"  It is the role of the Chair to designate that consensus is reached
and announce
this designation to the ICG. Member(s) of the ICG should be able to challenge
the designation of the Chair as part of the discussion.



If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given
to a position
by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps
sequentially:

   1.

   Send email to the Chair, copying the ICG explaining why the decision is
   believed to be in error.
   2.

   If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair must
   explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants.



   Any ICG member that believes that his/her contributions are being
   systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the
   ICG should discuss the circumstances with the ICG Chair/Co-Chairs"
   Unquote.

I am sorry these are incoherent with each other
In particular, when there is no precedure that an ICG memebr acts against
the chair,s ruling and until that objection  not settled  staisfactorily ,
the objection agianst ruling continued to prevail .
What does it mean that  "

If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given
to a position
by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps
sequentially:

   1.

   Send email to the Chair, copying the ICG explaining why the decision is
   believed to be in error.
   2.

   If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair must
   explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants"

Too much power is given to the chair and thus she or he  does not have
purely adm,inistrative and logestic role.rather has dominating role
This may not be correct
Tks
Kavouss




2014-08-10 22:58 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> referring to my related E-Mail some days ago I herewith put a draft
> proposal for the ICG decision making process (see attached) to the dropbox
> and welcome your edits/comments/amendments.
>
> The proposal is mainly based on my GNSO expertise and the process used
> generally in GNSO Working Groups. My thinking is:
>
> - we do not have to reinvent a fully new process rather we can use the
> experience all of us have gained in the international environment
> - we should find to a common understanding of "consensus"
>
> I'd like to encourage you to point out in your view
>
> - what may be wrong with this process proposed
> - what may be missing
> - what may be questionnable or cause misunderstanding
>
> In the end the agreed outcome could be annexed to the ICG charter.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140811/a571f886/attachment.html>