July 30, 2014
12:55 p.m.
My answers below: -------------------------- On 30/07/14 09:35, Patrik Fältström wrote: > Alissa, > > My summary of the feedback is as follows. > > I created the proposal and because of that of course stand behind all suggestions. > > In addition, I have seen feedback from: + Hartmut > Adiel Akplogan > Joseph Alhadeff > Lynn St.Amour > Manal Ismail > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Milton Müller > Jon Nevett > Jean-Jacques Subrenat > Paul Wilson > > I.e. 10 people I know the view of. > > Everyone of those commenting agree with the following 6 suggestions for the first 5 issues: > >> 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. >> >> 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. > 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: + Hartmut > 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 > > 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@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg