I've taken a shot at some comments on the draft...mostly in terms of phrasing... ----- Original Message ----- From: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com To: joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com, jjs@dyalog.net Cc: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk, internal-cg@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 Kavouss 2014-09-04 5:51 GMT+02:00 Joe Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@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? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk To: alissa@cooperw.in , Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de , internal-cg@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@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" 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg