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

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Thu Jul 31 10:36:20 UTC 2014

Thanks Patrik for this analysis – it is helpful in getting thoughts in order!

My thoughts on the six questions are:

1.       Liaisons:  I would generally agree that the role of the two liaisons is about making sure that the committee is informed about the issues related to the operation of the IANA service and the role of ICANN in the current environment.  I agree that it would be inappropriate for them to be directly involved in the decisions, and that their role in the discussions should be based on factual input on the current situation.

2.       Support Staff:  Again I would agree – we need support staff and the current team has shown that it can provide this in a neutral way.

3.       Interim GAC member:  Agreed.  Tracy did a great job stepping in as he did.  GAC has now identified its representatives.

4.       Secretariat:  Again agreed, that Sam should be included as support staff until we have come to a final agreement on arrangements.  I’d go one step further and also suggest that Sam could usefully be tasked with support on discussion threads (I was out of contact from 17.30 on 18 June until 8.00 on the 29th and am still trying to catch up with the discussions and which were still open!).  We do need a secretariat and my only criteria are that it reports directly to the committee (through the chair(s)) and is clear that the line of responsibility is to the committee.

5.       ICANN Back-up:  Agreed.

6.       Write Access:  I’m quite neutral on this so long as we are quite clear on the rules.  I’d be inclined to allow members, liaisons & support staff so long as all respect their “roles and responsibilities” ;-) .  Most important is that the editor is clearly signalled so we know who has edited what.  I’d actually expect liaison and support staff editing would be very limited.  Proposals from outside the group should be kept separate.

Hope this helps


On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:35, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se<mailto: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:

Adiel Akplogan
Joseph Alhadeff
Lynn St.Amour
Manal Ismail
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Milton Müller
Jon Nevett
Jean-Jacques Subrenat
Paul Wilson

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:

Patrik Fältström
Paul Wilson
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Lynn St.Amour

D, without any details:

Jon Nevett
Manal Ismail
Jean-Jacques Subrenat

D, with the constraint that it must be possible to trace who made what change:

Joseph Alhadeff

Prefer C, but can live with D:

Adiel Akplogan

Against D, and instead prefer A:

Milton Müller

I hope this helps.

   Regards, Patrik
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140731/23da406e/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list