Milton, assuredly, the representatives of the ALAC would have that capacity. But you do understand the desire of the ALAC to clarify and settle questions of principle before detail. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> a écrit :
Jean-Jacques In line with my earlier comments about representation, I would hope that the ALAC would delegate to you the ability to make decisions about procedural matters. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of jjs Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:32 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: ICG Internal Subject: [Internal-cg] Rép: Re: Appointment of Alissa Cooper as chair of ICG
Dear Patrik,
thank you for your comments.
Shortly, the ALAC will make known its position on these and other important issues, by way of a letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the members of the Coordination Group, which I will be forwarding. In the meantime, allow me to offer two remarks:
- In London we appointed one of our colleagues as Interim Chair; as far as I'm aware, this decision has not been rescinded, so there is no need to appoint or confirm an Interim Chair.
- As you have pointed out, balance is necessary, and the optics are also important. But this is more than about just optics: any move made in the name of expediency and to the detriment of principle, would weaken the likelihood of a durable transition, perhaps even put it in jeopardy.
In line with the above, you will understand that, as a representative of the ALAC, I cannot respond to the spontaneous vote and deadline you suggested. Also, this refusal to be drawn into a makeshift process should not be interpreted as approval or disapproval of any individual.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> a écrit :
Dear Jean-Jacques,
I hope my email was interpreted wrongly and that we can move forward slowly.
I completely understand your concern, and I find it being important to look at our processes and roles from an optics perspective. Just the last couple of days discussions about members and liaisons and this about appointment of leadership (which probably should be done with some reflexion on geography, gender, what party the individual represent etc) demonstrate to me we need a leader, call it interim, that can move us forward.
In London we agreed Alissa was that person for that meeting and I understand some people do think she still is. I did not think so or at least I wanted us to close that issue at least so that someone (Alissa) can be and act as chair until those issues are resolved.
Which of course could imply appointing three or five people of equal rank as chair out of which one might be Alissa or not. Or not appoint anyone. Or accept Alissa is continuing while appointing two Assistants.
What I asked for is consensus among us to have Alissa be the person that until we have a new leadership can and should act as our leader. Call it interim if you want.
If no objection is rised before Monday 1800 I find her be in that role.
With this clarification, I ask you whether you can accept her have that role, or if this notice from you is to be interpreted as an objection.
Please clarify.
Patrik
On 25 jul 2014, at 09:32, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
this is to inform you that the ALAC will be sending its observations shortly, not only on the structure of the Coordination Group, but also on other matters of importance.
In the meantime, the ALAC respectfully requests that decisions concerning the roles of individual members not be taken before some questions of principle have been adequately addressed.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark@accan.org.au> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>, "Patrik Fältströ