All,

attached is draft version v5 of the consensus building document which I’ve also uploaded to the dropbox.

In addition I send you the “ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v4 + MB (1),KA V3JHA” with all latest revisions and comments from your side (I hope I’m right). I have inserted my comments to yours as well as proposals on how to proceed. ICG-Consensus Building_draft_v5 is the result of this exercise:

it is explained that ICANN Board Liaison and ICANN Staff Laison Expert are not taking part in the decision making
“participants” replaced by “members”
quorum for decision making is defined as: A quorum is a majority of ICG members and must include at least one member of each ICG community (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en; 16 or more). This would cover Martins respective comment. If required something could be included in case of unintended absence.
re 4.a Personnel Decisions: in the second para. I suggest to lift the voting threshold to the level of the quorum as defined. Otherwise a voting with 9 affirmative votes may succeed which seems to be unbalanced.
“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.
minority views – if any – should be expressed in the report (maybe as an annex)
chair / (and/or) vicechairs: I think the respective roles, proxies etc. should be added to the “chair responsibility” document. Then here in the consensus building document reference is only made to the chair.

Please provide your comments with the “comment” function in order to make it easier to manage.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich