Regarding your request for confirmation for for example the three chair/vice-chair positions not bee needed, as we neither as you say had 100% voting, nor will we have 100% participation at this meeting. We will never have 100% participation in any kind of participation. And that is why I personally am extremely careful of in a context like ICG (or similar to it) talk about a certain percentage be needed to reach a conclusion.

On 1 sep 2014, at 21:07, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Patrik
Yes I also agree with Manal .In addition we need to examine the relation between the Enhanced ICANN Accountability and activities of ICG as referred to in the Charter
I have made some suggestions .I have made some changes as attached

KAVOUSS
2014-09-01 17:45 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:
Joseph,

Thanks for the suggestion. Let me think about this. It is important we cluster things the right way so that we also at the same time have time to actually walk through the full agenda. Clusters makes us save time.

Patrik
On 1 sep 2014, at 14:50, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
The only question I would have is should we move the consensus process document to be closer to the RFP discussion...

On 9/1/2014 7:15 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,

Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting on September 6.

Please come back with feedback on this list.

   Regards, Patrik Fältström
_______________________________________________
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
<Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc><Draft Agenda ICG meeting Istanbul,patrik revised by KA.doc>