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@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper

Sent: 03 September 2014 11:29
To: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben; internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] consensus building

Wolf-Ulrich,

Thanks for your work on this.

On 9/2/14, 1:19 AM, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> 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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg