[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Mon Aug 4 06:42:38 UTC 2014
what you say here is very similar to what made me react so strongly to
what ALAC is doing. We should not tolerate someone just asserting that
we made a certain decision and digging in on that asserted decision.
This kind of behaviour is not useful at best and destructive at worst.
If we tolerate this behaviour at this early stage, we encourage others
to show it as well. Should that happen we will have little chance of
achieving a result within a reasonable time and especially not in the
very short time line that is currently on the table largely unopposed.
Note well that I am not arguing with the rationale that Jean-Jaques puts
forward. I am opposed to tolerating the behaviour mentioned above.
On 3.08.14 15:05 , joseph alhadeff wrote:
> 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
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg