[Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
pwilson at apnic.net
Fri Jul 25 02:26:02 UTC 2014
Thanks Patrick for such a thorough review and recommendations. I agree with all your proposals.
Regarding write access to documents, I think we can all trust each other not to mess things up or exceed our respective roles, so your proposal is fine.
I think Milton’s proposal reflects that it is the IGC members (group A) who have authority and responsibility for the content of substantive documents, and I agree with that, however I still think it is useful and expedient to allow helpful edits from all members of groups A,B,C and D.
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 25 Jul 2014, at 9:16 am, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> Milton, thanks for your input. Let me clarify my rationale:
> On 24 jul 2014, at 23:12, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> When we need to come to consensus about something, the
>>> consensus should be among the members, not members+liaisons.
>>> We can solicit advice and opinions from the liaisons, but they
>>> should not otherwise be involved in consensus gathering or writing
>>> the group's output. I think it is inappropriate for people who are
>>> employed by ICANN or who have fiduciary responsibility to ICANN
>>> to be otherwise involved in discussions and decisions about the
>>> future of the oversight of one of the ICANN departments.
>> Agree, and this is very important.
>>> Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents.
>> Not agreed. I would support alternative A only.
>> This suggestion seems inconsistent with your first suggestion.
> Without me trying to change your mind, my rationale for this was a combination of:
> 1. Support staff to be able to support us must be able to also "write stuff"
> 2. Liaisons when giving comments should be able to do that by do "change control" in Word documents
> 3. Everyone involved know about A (above), and because of this we would not need *technical* barriers for individuals regarding what they can/should not do, because the ability for people to do their work is overall more important, and because of this I see these two suggestions can be implemented at the same time.
> Lets see what other people think (on all my suggestions).
> Regards, Patrik
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg