[Internal-cg] consensus building

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
Once again I request you to consider my amendments

In particular, Quorum : 2/3 instead of 1/2
DECISION MAKING : By consensus and under purely exceptional cases , by 2/3
of those ICG MEM,BERS  present at the meeting, or by remote voting
Other issue raised in my drafty
Regards
Kavouss



2014-09-02 15:18 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> 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 15:16 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
> 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/d46caf92/attachment.html>