[Internal-cg] consensus building

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Thu Sep 4 17:15:50 UTC 2014

No, I don't think this is possible according to the "rules" under which the 
ICG has been established.

Just proxies between ICG members.

Best regards


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Joseph Alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 7:09 PM
To: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ; wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org ; alissa at cooperw.in
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] consensus building

By a proxy do you mean another icc member who would be able to participate 
if there's a conflicted time for the principal?


Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: WUKnoben [wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
Received: Thursday, 04 Sep 2014, 8:03PM
To: Joe Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]; Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk 
[Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
CC: internal-cg at icann.org [internal-cg at icann.org]; alissa at cooperw.in 
[alissa at cooperw.in]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building

Yes, this is the intention. Quorum of members shall apply only in case a 
decision is due. Meeting attendance in general is a different aspect.

We’re going to deal with more and more details which may be important to fix 
depending on how we want to proceed. One example could be proxy for members 
being absent from a meeting.

To consider all communities in the way I’ve suggested may impose a problem 
to those represented by just 1 member (ASO, ICC/BASIS). In these cases proxy 
could help.

Throughout our discourse various levels have been put forward to reach 
quorum or decision. In the paper attached I’ve tried to make it more 
transparent and comparable re numbers and “quality” of these figures. Maybe 
it could be complemented.

Best regards


From: Joe Alhadeff
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:51 AM
To: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org ; alissa at cooperw.in ; 
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building

I think there are perhaps two amendments I would suggest to Martin's 

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?

----- 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 

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list