[Internal-cg] consensus building

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Tue Sep 2 21:09:00 UTC 2014

Dear Kavouss,

for the “many of your suggestions which where not taken into account” I’d like to answer with words Patrick was using in his answer to you:
Can you please be more specific on which one of your proposals where disregarded and ignored?

I did respond to your and other's suggestions, responded with what action I took related to them. If you or someone else do believe I did draw the wrong conclusions, just speak up and let the group know what the counter proposal is.

To the points you made specifically in your email attached I have inserted my comments in blue.

Best regards


From: Kavouss Arasteh 
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:16 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: Coordination Group 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building

Dear All,
Thank you very much for V5 Draft
Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account
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 " 
WUK: I understand that you would like to turn the “expectation” (which maybe imposed from outside the ICG) into “action” (coming from ICG inside). This indeed is more firm. How about “agree” (see updated v5 in dropbox).

What is the criteria used ," at least  one member from each communities"  what are these communities quantitatively 
WUK: I made reference to the respective website (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en). Headlines of the members’ list are “Community” and “Name of Representative”. Following this table there are 13 “communities” represented. As a consequence the number to reach quorum may vary but in any case 2 conditions have to be met. I replaced the word “member” by “ICG representative” and hope this makes it clearer.

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
WUK: This is our dilemma. We want to work and decide by consensus which would make voting (including counting votes) obsolete. We introduced polls – but in rare cases only. To be consistent we should avoid that polls become votings. And therefore the main focus should be on qualitative argumentation rather than quantitative.

There are other examples that my points were not taken into account
Please kindly reconsider the matter and carefully examine them and proceed
WUK: see my email


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


  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:
    a.. it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making
    b.. “participants” replaced by “members”
    c.. 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.
    d.. 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.
    e.. “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.
    f.. minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex)
    g.. 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


  Internal-cg mailing list
  Internal-cg at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140902/9265855e/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list