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

[Daniel Karrenberg]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 30.07.14 14:35 , Patrik Fältström wrote:

>> 1. Members and liaisons to ICG
>> 
>> Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only
>> among members (not members+liaisons).

Agree.

>> 
>> 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.

Agree.

>> 
>> 3. Interim appointed GAC member
>> 
>> Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.

Agree.

>> 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).

I disagree if this means waiting to pubish minutes until this is
resolved. I agree if we continue pragmatically to construct minutes
from our first meeting. We should publish agreed minutes from our
meetings as soon as practical. We can use the work of Sam as a basis
after she has worked in our respective comments. We should agree on
minutes at our next meeting. If we cannot at least agree on minutes of
what happened we have achieved very little.

>> 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.

Agree. My general attitude is to avoid being anal about these things.
If someone misbehaves when writing to a list with posting restrictions
it can be rectified easily and quickly. If someone has something
substantive to say and refrains from doing so because it is too
cumbersome that can be bad.

> 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

I find myself agreeing with Joseph.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
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=EGwc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----