[Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reachconsensus on

[WUKnoben]

That's exactly how I see it:

If permission is granted to liaisons and staff to make suggestions then they 
should be able to incorporate it into the draft text where the last decision 
is taken by the ICG members. For me irt has also a practical advantage to 
see a written proposal in redline inserted rather than to switch beteen 
original and proposed amendment.

I also agree to your other recommendations. Patrick.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Paul Wilson
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:26 AM
To: Patrik Fältström
Cc: ICG Internal
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reachconsensus 
on

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.


________________________________________________________________________
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.
>
> Ok.
>
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

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