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

[Milton L Mueller]

Yes, Patrik I fully understood your original rationale. I still don't agree with it, however. 
If we want staff help in actually writing documents (and I don't think we need that or should do it most of the time anyway) someone on the CG can send them a non-official copy and then file the changes themselves. If the ICANN staff members are on the CG as liaisons or as support, there is no justification for delegating to them the authority to write our documents. That's obviously asking for trouble. 

--MM

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:16 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Jon Nevett; ICG Internal
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on

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