[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Aug 3 13:05:01 UTC 2014
At the end of the day for me there is a slight preference for a 1+2
solution, but as this is a purely procedural and administrative position
the end result is less important.
I do have a concern related to process. I am not in agreement with the
ALAC position that we cannot evolve positions over time or that humming
in a physical meeting is any better way of canvassing the crowd than
doodle polling. To me, the reconsideration of this position is not
"ad-hoc" as it represented the desire of the majority of those that
commented. Here we get to my largest frustration. We are not serving
or have not been appointed by our various communities to be silent. We
need the active participation of all members. I can understand that
participation in Auguest may be somewhat spotty, but this cannot be the
case as we go into the balance of our process.
I would like us to return to previous proposals about online processes
that I and others have made to agree on how decisions can be made
pursuant to which processes.
On 8/3/2014 4:59 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Dear Jean-Jaques,
> thank you very much for conveying the position of ALAC again. I had
> hoped that ALAC would take note that several ICG members have expressed
> a different interpretation of what has in fact occurred at our London
> meeting. It is unfortunate that we do not have agreed minutes we can
> refer to; however re-reading the transcript re-enforces my own
> perception that in fact the proceedings were merely exploratory and no
> decision in the matter was taken at that meeting.
> It is unfortunate and not at all helpful that ALAC has decided to
> re-iterate its firm position in the light of a compromise emerging.
> I fear that this matter will have to be resolved at a face-to-face
> meeting unless ALAC chooses to change its position in the direction of
> the emerging compromise.
> We now face a number of operational challenges: we have to agree on who
> prepares and chairs the August teleconference. It is my perception that
> there is consensus that Alissa do so for us. It would help if we could
> hear explicit opinions from the ICG membership about this.
> More seriously we have to agree who prepares and chairs our September
> f2f meeting. Since I understand that Alissa will not be available to
> chair the meeting we will have to find another person for that role, at
> least until we decide on definite chairs. The only practical solution I
> can see is to engage an external chair for this purpose. We need to come
> to agreement on this soon if we care about the image of this group.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg