[Internal-cg] Letter from US Senators

Thu Jul 31 16:59:00 UTC 2014

Thought that this letter from U.S. Senators Thune and Rubio might be of interest to the group:

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/?a=files.serve&File_id=80ea52e6-a50f-434a-8e23-d8ccc3a3b711

Best,

Jon

On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 30.07.14 14:35 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 
>>> 1. Members and liaisons to ICG
>>> 
>>> Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only
>>> among members (not members+liaisons).
> 
> Agree.
> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Agree.
> 
>>> 
>>> 3. Interim appointed GAC member
>>> 
>>> Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
> 
> Agree.
> 
>>> 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).
> 
> I disagree if this means waiting to pubish minutes until this is
> resolved. I agree if we continue pragmatically to construct minutes
> from our first meeting. We should publish agreed minutes from our
> meetings as soon as practical. We can use the work of Sam as a basis
> after she has worked in our respective comments. We should agree on
> minutes at our next meeting. If we cannot at least agree on minutes of
> what happened we have achieved very little.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Agree. My general attitude is to avoid being anal about these things.
> If someone misbehaves when writing to a list with posting restrictions
> it can be rectified easily and quickly. If someone has something
> substantive to say and refrains from doing so because it is too
> cumbersome that can be bad.
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Out of the individuals I have heard from, I have the following
>> feedback, in order depending on how supportive the individuals are
>> of D and other alternatives:
>> 
>> D, with additional information that in practice it is the only
>> workable alternative:
>> 
>> Patrik Fältström Paul Wilson Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Lynn St.Amour
>> 
>> D, without any details:
>> 
>> Jon Nevett Manal Ismail Jean-Jacques Subrenat
>> 
>> D, with the constraint that it must be possible to trace who made
>> what change:
>> 
>> Joseph Alhadeff
> 
> I find myself agreeing with Joseph.
> 
>> 
>> Prefer C, but can live with D:
>> 
>> Adiel Akplogan
>> 
>> Against D, and instead prefer A:
>> 
>> Milton Müller
>> 
>> 
>> I hope this helps.
>> 
>> Regards, Patrik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing
>> list Internal-cg at icann.org 
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
> 
> iQIVAwUBU9oyQ9DY5Emqa716AQJzSRAAr4lvofbNFdPKhQ01wDALSXas15r4zB5O
> Jt1pUcQ8eJ6KeXTdhx39Cb7eVRyo/Io2aLx9CosWwjKdCfzeWm4/zkXZrXvC2FDb
> ASCPx+33y6kot6hCL0iQ40xRNZ8PgAdI6hchg1ZPv7KiqPjOHyuOshlGEKqWmTdH
> FdC3sacyM4ZzlrrVobg2OdB5hcqG40TjzKEzcJU8w/yAX/AMZU3jvWQVHNIq8ytz
> HQNFllokhbQ+TxHQ/FGGy3JYC8C3GcVThyVugD73wVtqtgh0oTucD33EnzVqdSex
> /fNiYSnu4BiOQ27I6yujDgCz1K7Usk+YGDaFQcybQrYXbscrl4YdsY+VJlKxWGzn
> jUMm4J99yOn8GSV+FABO3FFv11I00Nj1/4Kv9CLop9JniatAsdMXA03CLpoZtVgG
> NVwI0X126mvVTK/e0iYVR24BWJMH9gKvZ4P6ZP5rK5lQ63ap+/l54ZOwgOkR0sep
> xnaYJX+CZROTVfMHf1nxauH3w20Rjes7i/iNG1kW2I4dUmnX4FIn4spXHKR8WShB
> OeSL5S2E6DjUcZUai20hN5cxPppREBaOZfU4TTb38AOdJsOgXdT0EnYt+A8qT4Rj
> k/K702h6BT+uTJCqOHOaBAX+6PdRlFCunaKKWQq6tsw1jNsv927s3+rGonS9ItzL
> ZrSWp34/zyI=
> =EGwc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg