I think I'm generally with Narelle on this. -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Narelle Clark Sent: 22 August 2014 04:09 To: Alissa Cooper; Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Role of liaisons was RE: Consensus building process
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, 22 August 2014 10:44 AM
One more item I forgot to mention — this document says nothing about the role of our two liaisons in decision-making. From my perspective I think the liaisons should be encouraged to engage in all discussions, but when it comes down to making consensus determinations, they should be recused.
[Narelle Clark] Eh? Liaisons are there to: - advise on processes for each of the bodies they liaise with - report between the parties - in the case of the IANA liaison to advise on IANA function itself - co-ordinate interdependent timetables - possibly other stuff I have missed. ie liaise. I don't consider it completely appropriate for liaisons to be a full party to discussion. As with everything, I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but my initial reaction is that were they deemed appropriate as full members, they would be full members. Please note, this is not intended as any negative on the behaviour or character of the particular individuals, rather the principle of liaison, and the potential impact from assertions that the ICG's task has been subverted by those to close to ICANN and IANA. Regards Narelle _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg