Dear All,
Every moment we received a new thought.
Somebody stated that
The Role of the chair is purely administrative and NOT DECISION MAKING
Another person stated that
Quote
"  It is the role of the Chair to designate that consensus is reached and announce this designation to the ICG. Member(s) of the ICG should be able to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the discussion.

 

If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially:

  1. Send email to the Chair, copying the ICG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

  2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants.

     

    Any ICG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the ICG should discuss the circumstances with the ICG Chair/Co-Chairs" Unquote.

I am sorry these are incoherent with each other
In particular, when there is no precedure that an ICG memebr acts against the chair,s ruling and until that objection  not settled  staisfactorily , the objection agianst ruling continued to prevail .
What does it mean that  "

If several participants in the ICG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially:

  1. Send email to the Chair, copying the ICG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.

  2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants"

Too much power is given to the chair and thus she or he  does not have purely adm,inistrative and logestic role.rather has dominating role 
This may not be correct
Tks
Kavouss  


2014-08-10 22:58 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Dear colleagues,

referring to my related E-Mail some days ago I herewith put a draft proposal for the ICG decision making process (see attached) to the dropbox and welcome your edits/comments/amendments.

The proposal is mainly based on my GNSO expertise and the process used generally in GNSO Working Groups. My thinking is:

- we do not have to reinvent a fully new process rather we can use the experience all of us have gained in the international environment
- we should find to a common understanding of "consensus"

I'd like to encourage you to point out in your view

- what may be wrong with this process proposed
- what may be missing
- what may be questionnable or cause misunderstanding

In the end the agreed outcome could be annexed to the ICG charter.

Best regards

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