[Internal-cg] consensus building

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 11:31:41 UTC 2014

Dear All,
Thanks to Martin making kind efforts to resolve some of the issues
My comments on quorum and decision making is merely related to the second
category of Recommendations
*" Recommendation *- a position where only a minority disagrees and their
objections have been documented, but at least 2/3 of the members prewsnt
physically  or attending/participating remotely  most agree and no ICG
community as a whole is ...( delete firmly since objection is objection and
does not require firmness)
This voting should only and only be limited ,as the last ,and really last
,option/recourse, and on purely exceptional cases.
Please kindly consider that simple majority is not properly responding to
the delicate issue under the ICG purview and 2/3 majority ,in case of this
type of recommendation, is the minimum acceptable threshold.
In some parliamentary approach even 4/5  criteria is used.
We should consider that I purposely mention 2/3 of those ICG Members
physically attending and those remotely participating in the process to
take account of every boy .That seems covering the concerns of everybody
whether physically attending or remotely participating in the decision
making process

2014-09-04 10:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> I've taken a shot at some comments on the draft...mostly in terms of
> phrasing...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> To: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com, jjs at dyalog.net
> Cc: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk, internal-cg at icann.org
> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:34:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
> Dear All,
> In order to facilitate your tasks
> I have included my earlier amendment in the doc. as labeled V5  rev ka 04
> Sept  as attached
> Kavouss
> 2014-09-04 5:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>> I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's
>> comments.
>> 1.  Quorum as a concept should probably be more clearly applied only to
>> voting/ultimate decision-making.  In its normal usage it also applies to
>> when a meeting can be held based on attendance of members.
>> 2.  I agree that operational communities have a special role, but also
>> believe that we need to consider all communities.  Is there a way to keep
>> the text as is and address Martin's concern in IV instead?
>> Joe
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
>> To: alissa at cooperw.in, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de,
>> internal-cg at icann.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:08:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building
>> Thank you Alissa: this reflects my concerns well. I note that we did this
>> discussion entirely by e-mail, so I can understand how Wolf-Ulrich missed
>> it. I have a couple of other comments - all are in the marked-up draft
>> attached and placed in drop-box. Best Martin -----Original Message-----
>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29 To: Wolf-Ulrich
>> Knoben; internal-cg at icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus
>> building Wolf-Ulrich, Thanks for your work on this. On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM,
>> "WUKnoben"  wrote: > >* “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. > I’m not sure this
>> matches what was being discussed on the list. If we use the text Martin had
>> suggested, I think the third bullet under section 4(b) should read: "After
>> enough time has passed for the ICG to consider and attempt to accommodate
>> objections, the ICG can reach a conclusion if at most a small minority
>> disagrees and their objections have been documented. It is not expected
>> that the representatives of an operational community significantly and
>> directly affected by a conclusion would be overruled in this process.”
>> Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing
>> list Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140904/3be27f88/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list