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

[Joseph Alhadeff]

Would it be possible to get a clean version with all the accepted edits?

Thanks

Joe

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:43 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> That's exactly how I see it:
> 
> If permission is granted to liaisons and staff to make suggestions then they should be able to incorporate it into the draft text where the last decision is taken by the ICG members. For me irt has also a practical advantage to see a written proposal in redline inserted rather than to switch beteen original and proposed amendment.
> 
> I also agree to your other recommendations. Patrick.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul Wilson
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:26 AM
> To: Patrik Fältström
> Cc: ICG Internal
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reachconsensus on
> 
> Thanks Patrick for such a thorough review and recommendations.   I agree with all your proposals.
> 
> Regarding write access to documents, I think we can all trust each other not to mess things up or exceed our respective roles, so your proposal is fine.
> 
> I think Milton’s proposal reflects that it is the IGC members (group A) who have authority and responsibility for the content of substantive documents, and I agree with that, however I still think it is useful and expedient to allow helpful edits from all members of groups A,B,C and D.
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
> 
> See you at APNIC 38!                      http://conference.apnic.net/38
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 25 Jul 2014, at 9:16 am, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Ok.
>> 
>>> 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).
>> 
>>  Regards, Patrik
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg