[Internal-cg] consensus building
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Sep 2 21:52:36 UTC 2014
Please take the following attachment( my proposal 0 and compare it with
version 5 and kindly find out differences
By the way you propose to replace " expected " agreed" ,I am sorry this is
not some thing that we agree or disagree this is something that is
imcumbent to all of us therefroe either we use the term " shall" or "
There are other points
Please carefully read attachments plus three other messages sent since then
2014-09-02 23:09 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
> 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 <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:16 PM
> *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Cc:* Coordination Group <internal-cg at icann.org>
> *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 (
> 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
> 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:
>> - 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 (
>> 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
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3.doc
Size: 118784 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Internal-cg