I still believe that whether or nor ICG is political or non political environment we need to follow normal practices that every body else follows..
If in IETF or other ICANN constituencies that practice was not followed, it is not to me to intervene. However, as far as ICG which has been established pursuant to the announcement of NTIA( political or otherwise) we should formally approve or confirm the election or designation.
" 1. I don’t see a real need to formally confirm/designate the chairs/vicechairs. This was already done with the election and the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes. I think we are here in a working and not in a political environment where such a formal step may be applicable."
Unquote
In the quoted paragraph it is mentioned that ' the acceptance of the candidates and is hopefully reflected in the related minutes"
WHAT MINUTES.
Dear Col;leagues
There was some consultations ,there was poll.
There was some outcome .
Some voted .Some did not voted
The results supported the Chair and two Vice chairs as contained in one of the last e-mail
However, as ICG is a formal Group and its output and decisions are formal thus the designation /election of the Chair and two Vice chairs must be formally announced ,no doubt without any discussion ,what so ever ,
I hope that you have now been briefed as you should be and kindlky agree to that process
Regards
KAVOUSS
I have not seen any minute( s0 as e-mail correspondence is e-mail correspondence and in no way is to be understood to construe as " Minutes"
As for SUMMARY OF DECISION or WRAP UP
I am happy that finally it is being accepted thus Patrik is kindly requested to include that in the agenda
It’s clear that in case of a public statement of the meeting this statement has to be discussed within the ICG. I suggest put the topic “public statement” under AOB – just as placeholder