[Internal-cg] consensus building

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Thu Sep 4 21:20:38 UTC 2014

Thanks Kavouss for the explanation.

I think here’s the main point to be discussed at our meeting in Istanbul. I’m still more inclined to follow the consensus approach which would mean – at least for me as a consequence, and I understand Martin’s comment similarly – not to impose dedicated threshold figures but to qualitatively describe under what conditions a recommendation can be reached. Consensus means that no-one at the end is overruled. Neither 29 overrule 1 nor vice versa 1 blocks 29. Imposing a voting scheme is at least for me not consistent with this principle.

I’d also like to follow some of Kavouss’ comments with Martin’s polite polishing (it definitely “will” improve my English).

My comments are inserted in the document attached.

Best regards


From: Kavouss Arasteh 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:31 PM
To: Joe Alhadeff 
Cc: Coordination Group 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building

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 

  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?


    ----- 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

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/20140904/7ed6d7a5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 + MBv6 of KA 04 SEPT 20124 + MB (1) + WUK.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 107008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140904/7ed6d7a5/ICG-ConsensusBuilding_draft_v5MBv6ofKA04SEPT20124MB1WUK.doc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list