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:

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:

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