[Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Thu Jul 31 11:10:17 UTC 2014
Answers embedded below.
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
> 1. Members and liaisons to ICG
> Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among
> members (not members+liaisons).
> 2. Support staff
> Suggestion: We accept the proposal from ICANN to until further notice
> from ICG continue with this set of support staff: Theresa, Ergys,
> Alice, Jim and Hillary.
> 3. Interim appointed GAC member
> Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
Definitely. [insert applause]
> 4. Minutes of our meeting
> Suggestion: We postpone discussion on minutes and otherwise record
> taking of our future meetings to the discussion on the Secretariat.
> Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam
> Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa,
> Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary).
> 5. ICANN backup contacts
> Suggestion: We support ICANN in this proposal, thanks Jamie and Grace
> for their ability to help, and I validate the situation that they have
> been removed from the mailing list and that way got special treatment
> compared with other ICANN staff.
> For the last issue, regarding "write access" to our documents the feedback is split.
> First a reminder what I wrote:
> 6. Write access to our documents
> Everyone is to be given read access to our documents. Question is who
> should get read/write access.
> We have a number of alternatives here, and which one we choose depends
> on what answers we get on the questions above.
> Alternative A: Members only
> Today members of ICG do have write access, and update of documents
> there depends on members doing explicit actions.
> Alternative B: Members + liaisons
> To make feedback loop from liaisons easier, we also give write access
> for liaisons. This do give ability for liaisons to write in documents,
> which might be preferable for example in the form of change tags in
> Word documents.
> Alternative C: Members + Support Staff
> By letting support staff write to documents members will be relieved
> from the task of updating documents and otherwise do purely
> administerial tasks.
> Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff
> A merge of alternative B and C. In reality it implies (given my
> suggestion on issue 5 above finds consensus in ICG) that all members
> of this mailing list do get read/write access to the documents.
> Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support
> Staff get read/write access to our documents.
I argue there is no 'one size fits all'.
With each document it will be appropriate for one of the above to apply.
With each document there needs to be clear accountability/stewardship of the document so that the errors, omissions, clarifications etc get included and version id's incremented etc. Secretariats are highly useful for that task. A Secretariat can be directed by a Steward.
I would say if we can state clearly where there is a requirement for a document to have model A, B, C or D, then it be specified when the Steward for any particular document be designated.
I would also want to ensure that we can manage the transparency, probity and conflict of issues that arise in these sorts of tasks. I would not also want to put any of the ICANN staff in the delicate situation of being caught in - well - delicate situations.
Thanks Patrik for your compilation
More information about the Internal-cg