[Internal-cg] consensus building

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
Thank you very much for V5 Draft
Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account
e.g.
ICG is expected ... where as I clearly mentioned that we should not talk
about or refer to expectation rather talk about or refer to what should be
done either mandatory " shall "  or morally mandatory " should " or between
the two " needs to "
Quorums
What is the criteria used ," at least  one member from each communities"
 what are these communities quantitatively
We should always talk about number ( s) I suggested at least 2/3 or 4/5 BUT
CERTAINLY NOT 1/2since it is totally in appropriate that for such a
delicate ,sensitive issue 14 out of 30 disagree and still we take the
decision is valid.
Please look at all international law decision making process 2/3 is the
minimum

There are other examples that my points were not taken into account
Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed
Regards
Kavouss


2014-09-02 0:19 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   All,
>
> attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve
> also uploaded to the dropbox.
>
> In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA
> V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m
> right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to
> proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise:
>
>    - it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison
>    Expert are not taking part in the decision making
>    - “participants” replaced by “members”
>    - quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of
>    ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community (
>    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en;
>    16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required
>    something could be included in case of unintended absence.
>    - re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift
>    the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a
>    voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced.
>    - “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.
>    - minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe
>    as an annex)
>    - chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies
>    etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in
>    the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair.
>
>
>    Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to
>    make it easier to manage.
>
>    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/20140902/e1d73aef/attachment.html>