[Internal-cg] consensus building

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 20:26:40 UTC 2014

Dear All,
Thank you for preparing this useful threshold but I do not understand its
implication and or application
I am in favour of 2/3 or 4/5 majority for quorum and for decision making
See my proposal V6 KA

2014-09-04 19:15 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

> 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
> Wolf-Ulrich
> -----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?
> Joe
> 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
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 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
> 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/a2d7907b/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list