Dear All,
Thank you very much for V5 Draft
Still many of my suggestions were not taken into account
e.g.
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).
Quorums
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 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en).
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
minimum
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
Regards
Kavouss