[Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
mnuduma at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 31 00:33:17 UTC 2014
I did not see the original message from Patrik due to limited connections at my location.
I do support the 5 points raised, and on the 6th, I support option D as it seems the most
practical alternative taking into account Joe's suggestions as well.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
My summary of the feedback is as follows.
I created the proposal and because of that of course stand behind all suggestions.
In addition, I have seen feedback from:
I.e. 10 people I know the view of.
Everyone of those commenting agree with the following 6 suggestions for the first 5 issues:
> 1. Members and liaisons to ICG
> Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among
> members (not members+liaisons).
> 2. Support staff
> Suggestion: We accept the proposal from ICANN to until further notice
> from ICG continue with this set of support staff: Theresa, Ergys,
> Alice, Jim and Hillary.
> 3. Interim appointed GAC member
> Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
> 4. Minutes of our meeting
> Suggestion: We postpone discussion on minutes and otherwise record
> taking of our future meetings to the discussion on the Secretariat.
> Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam
> Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa,
> Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary).
> 5. ICANN backup contacts
> Suggestion: We support ICANN in this proposal, thanks Jamie and Grace
> for their ability to help, and I validate the situation that they have
> been removed from the mailing list and that way got special treatment
> compared with other ICANN staff.
For the last issue, regarding "write access" to our documents the feedback is split.
First a reminder what I wrote:
> 6. Write access to our documents
> Everyone is to be given read access to our documents. Question is who
> should get read/write access.
> We have a number of alternatives here, and which one we choose depends
> on what answers we get on the questions above.
> Alternative A: Members only
> Today members of ICG do have write access, and update of documents
> there depends on members doing explicit actions.
> Alternative B: Members + liaisons
> To make feedback loop from liaisons easier, we also give write access
> for liaisons. This do give ability for liaisons to write in documents,
> which might be preferable for example in the form of change tags in
> Word documents.
> Alternative C: Members + Support Staff
> By letting support staff write to documents members will be relieved
> from the task of updating documents and otherwise do purely
> administerial tasks.
> Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff
> A merge of alternative B and C. In reality it implies (given my
> suggestion on issue 5 above finds consensus in ICG) that all members of
> this mailing list do get read/write access to the documents.
> Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support
> Staff get read/write access to our documents.
Out of the individuals I have heard from, I have the following feedback, in order depending on how supportive the individuals are of D and other alternatives:
D, with additional information that in practice it is the only workable alternative:
D, without any details:
D, with the constraint that it must be possible to trace who made what change:
Prefer C, but can live with D:
Against D, and instead prefer A:
I hope this helps.
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg