[Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
paf at frobbit.se
Thu Jul 24 23:16:04 UTC 2014
Milton, thanks for your input. Let me clarify my rationale:
On 24 jul 2014, at 23:12, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> When we need to come to consensus about something, the
>> consensus should be among the members, not members+liaisons.
>> We can solicit advice and opinions from the liaisons, but they
>> should not otherwise be involved in consensus gathering or writing
>> the group's output. I think it is inappropriate for people who are
>> employed by ICANN or who have fiduciary responsibility to ICANN
>> to be otherwise involved in discussions and decisions about the
>> future of the oversight of one of the ICANN departments.
> Agree, and this is very important.
>> Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents.
> Not agreed. I would support alternative A only.
> This suggestion seems inconsistent with your first suggestion.
Without me trying to change your mind, my rationale for this was a combination of:
1. Support staff to be able to support us must be able to also "write stuff"
2. Liaisons when giving comments should be able to do that by do "change control" in Word documents
3. Everyone involved know about A (above), and because of this we would not need *technical* barriers for individuals regarding what they can/should not do, because the ability for people to do their work is overall more important, and because of this I see these two suggestions can be implemented at the same time.
Lets see what other people think (on all my suggestions).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg