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@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@frobbit.se> wrote:
Milton, thanks for your input. Let me clarify my rationale:
On 24 jul 2014, at 23:12, Milton L Mueller <mueller@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg