Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on
All, I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained. This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people: A. Members of the ICG B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA) C. Support Staff (from ICANN) D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN) The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course. When validating these four groups I found out a few things: Group A consists of the following people: ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir ASO Hartmut Glaser ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy Group B contains: Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people: Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process. Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support. Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website. In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are: Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend. Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support. Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team. Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate: 1. Members and liaisons to ICG My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. 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. I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London. Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). 2. Support staff Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice. 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 Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members. Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. 4. Minutes of our meeting Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature. 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 As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already. 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. 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.
Patrik: Thanks for the thorough analysis. I, for one, agree with all of your suggestions. Best, Jon On Jul 24, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained.
This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end.
The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people:
A. Members of the ICG
B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA)
C. Support Staff (from ICANN)
D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN)
The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course.
When validating these four groups I found out a few things:
Group A consists of the following people:
ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir
ASO Hartmut Glaser
ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle
GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel
gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett
GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos
ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff
IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour
IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper
ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko
NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson
RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg
SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy
Group B contains:
Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu
Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich
Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people:
Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process.
Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support.
Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website.
In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are:
Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend.
Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support.
Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team.
Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons.
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.
I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London.
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
2. Support staff
Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice.
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
Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members.
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
4. Minutes of our meeting
Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature.
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
As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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: 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.
Agreed.
Suggestion: We postpone discussion on minutes and otherwise record taking of our future meetings to the discussion on the Secretariat.
Agreed.
Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickinson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary).
Agreed.
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. This suggestion seems inconsistent with your first suggestion.
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
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
That's exactly how I see it: If permission is granted to liaisons and staff to make suggestions then they should be able to incorporate it into the draft text where the last decision is taken by the ICG members. For me irt has also a practical advantage to see a written proposal in redline inserted rather than to switch beteen original and proposed amendment. I also agree to your other recommendations. Patrick. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul Wilson Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:26 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: ICG Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reachconsensus on 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Would it be possible to get a clean version with all the accepted edits? Thanks Joe Sent from my iPad
On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:43 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
That's exactly how I see it:
If permission is granted to liaisons and staff to make suggestions then they should be able to incorporate it into the draft text where the last decision is taken by the ICG members. For me irt has also a practical advantage to see a written proposal in redline inserted rather than to switch beteen original and proposed amendment.
I also agree to your other recommendations. Patrick.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul Wilson Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:26 AM To: Patrik Fältström Cc: ICG Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reachconsensus on
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes, Patrik I fully understood your original rationale. I still don't agree with it, however. If we want staff help in actually writing documents (and I don't think we need that or should do it most of the time anyway) someone on the CG can send them a non-official copy and then file the changes themselves. If the ICANN staff members are on the CG as liaisons or as support, there is no justification for delegating to them the authority to write our documents. That's obviously asking for trouble. --MM -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:16 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Jon Nevett; ICG Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on 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
Thank you Patrick, Below are my comments. On Jul 24, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. <snip>… …
Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. <snip>
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
Agreed.
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.
Agreed.
3. Interim appointed GAC member
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed.
Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary).
Agreed.
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.
Agreed.
6. Write access to our 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.
Will be my preferred option.
Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff
Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents.
I can live with the above as well. - a.
seem like good options. +1 On 7/25/2014 7:38 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
Thank you Patrick,
Below are my comments.
On Jul 24, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. <snip>... ... Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. <snip>
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). Agreed.
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. Agreed.
3. Interim appointed GAC member
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. Agreed.
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. Agreed.
Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary). Agreed.
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. Agreed.
6. Write access to our 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. Will be my preferred option.
Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff
Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents. I can live with the above as well.
- a.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Many thanks Patrik .. I also support all below suggestions .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 2:36 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on seem like good options. +1 On 7/25/2014 7:38 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: Thank you Patrick, Below are my comments. On Jul 24, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> <mailto:paf@frobbit.se> wrote: This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. <snip>... ... Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate: 1. Members and liaisons to ICG My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. <snip> Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). Agreed. 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. Agreed. 3. Interim appointed GAC member Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. Agreed. 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. Agreed. Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary). Agreed. 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. Agreed. 6. Write access to our 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. Will be my preferred option. Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents. I can live with the above as well. - a. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Patrik, I agree on the 6 points made. Thank you for sorting this out. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 26 Juillet 2014 15:05:22 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on Many thanks Patrik .. I also support all below suggestions .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 2:36 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on seem like good options. +1 On 7/25/2014 7:38 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: Thank you Patrick, Below are my comments. On Jul 24, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote: This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end. <snip>… … Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate: 1. Members and liaisons to ICG My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons. <snip> Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons). Agreed. 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. Agreed. 3. Interim appointed GAC member Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate. Agreed. 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. Agreed. Suggestion: Until minutes from first meeting are complete, Sam Dickingson should be treated as support staff (together with Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary). Agreed. 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. Agreed. 6. Write access to our 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. Will be my preferred option. Alternative D: Members + Liaisons + Support Staff Suggestion: Alternative D, i.e. all Members, Liaisons and Support Staff get read/write access to our documents. I can live with the above as well. - a. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Patrik, thank you for your work on this. I agree with your suggestions. More specifically, with respect to the suggestion concerning read/write access to our documents for Members, Liaisons and Support Staff (Point 6 - Alternative D). I support your recommendation that all have read/write access to our documents. I believe we can and should trust everyone to respect our various roles; and it should facilitate the work we all have to do. In addition, all contributions will then be better integrated and clearly visible. We can revisit this decision in the future, if it is not working to the ICG's expectations. Finally, thank you to all who helped kickstart this journey, particularly Tracy Hackshaw who made a big effort to be with us at a critical stage in the ICG's formation. Best, Lynn On Jul 24, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained.
This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end.
The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people:
A. Members of the ICG
B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA)
C. Support Staff (from ICANN)
D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN)
The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course.
When validating these four groups I found out a few things:
Group A consists of the following people:
ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir
ASO Hartmut Glaser
ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle
GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel
gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett
GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos
ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff
IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour
IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper
ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko
NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson
RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg
SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy
Group B contains:
Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu
Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich
Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people:
Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process.
Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support.
Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website.
In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are:
Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend.
Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support.
Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team.
Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons.
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.
I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London.
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
2. Support staff
Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice.
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
Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members.
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
4. Minutes of our meeting
Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature.
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
As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On read write, I don't have a problem as long as we use a method that can show changes and attribution. It is very hard to find an edit or an omission when you don't know you are looking for one... On 7/27/2014 1:42 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Hi Patrik,
thank you for your work on this.
I agree with your suggestions. More specifically, with respect to the suggestion concerning read/write access to our documents for Members, Liaisons and Support Staff (Point 6 - Alternative D). I support your recommendation that all have read/write access to our documents. I believe we can and should trust everyone to respect our various roles; and it should facilitate the work we all have to do. In addition, all contributions will then be better integrated and clearly visible. We can revisit this decision in the future, if it is not working to the ICG's expectations.
Finally, thank you to all who helped kickstart this journey, particularly Tracy Hackshaw who made a big effort to be with us at a critical stage in the ICG's formation.
Best, Lynn
On Jul 24, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained.
This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end.
The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people:
A. Members of the ICG
B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA)
C. Support Staff (from ICANN)
D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN)
The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course.
When validating these four groups I found out a few things:
Group A consists of the following people:
ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir
ASO Hartmut Glaser
ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle
GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel
gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett
GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos
ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff
IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour
IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper
ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko
NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson
RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg
SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy
Group B contains:
Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu
Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich
Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people:
Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process.
Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support.
Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website.
In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are:
Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend.
Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support.
Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team.
Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons.
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.
I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London.
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
2. Support staff
Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice.
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
Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members.
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
4. Minutes of our meeting
Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature.
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
As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Patrik, Can you summarize where we are on this thread? Thanks, Alissa On 7/28/14, 4:42 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
On read write, I don't have a problem as long as we use a method that can show changes and attribution. It is very hard to find an edit or an omission when you don't know you are looking for one... On 7/27/2014 1:42 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Hi Patrik,
thank you for your work on this.
I agree with your suggestions. More specifically, with respect to the suggestion concerning read/write access to our documents for Members, Liaisons and Support Staff (Point 6 - Alternative D). I support your recommendation that all have read/write access to our documents. I believe we can and should trust everyone to respect our various roles; and it should facilitate the work we all have to do. In addition, all contributions will then be better integrated and clearly visible. We can revisit this decision in the future, if it is not working to the ICG's expectations.
Finally, thank you to all who helped kickstart this journey, particularly Tracy Hackshaw who made a big effort to be with us at a critical stage in the ICG's formation.
Best, Lynn
On Jul 24, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
I have investigated who are on the mailing list, and also asked ICANN Staff to provide a list of the participants in the ICG work. When I compared the two lists, I found some differences, and the difference is that more people are subscribed to the list than what the lists I received from ICANN contained.
This email contain my findings and have 6 decisions/action points at the end.
The list I got from ICANN contained four groups of people:
A. Members of the ICG
B. Liaisons to the ICG (from ICANN Board and IANA)
C. Support Staff (from ICANN)
D. Other people (on mailing list but not on the list I got from ICANN)
The main reason for investigating this is to understand who should get read/write access to our documents. Everyone do get read access of course.
When validating these four groups I found out a few things:
Group A consists of the following people:
ALAC Jean-Jacques Subrenat Mohamed El-Bashir
ASO Hartmut Glaser
ccNSO Mary Uduma Xiaodong Lee Keith Davidson Martin Boyle
GNSO Wolf Ulrich Knoben Milton Mueller James Bladel
gTLD Registries Keith Drazek Jon Nevett
GAC Heather Dryden Manal Ismail Aratesh Kavouss Michael Niebel Jandyr Santos
ICC/BASIS Joseph Alhadeff
IAB Russ Housley Lynn St Amour
IETF Jari Arkko Alissa Cooper
ISOC Narelle Clark Demi Getschko
NRO Adiel Akplogan Paul Wilson
RSSAC Lars-Johan Liman Daniel Karrenberg
SSAC Patrik Fältström Russ Mundy
Group B contains:
Board Liaison Kuo Wei-Wu
Dedicated IANA staff liaison expert Elise Gerich
Group C and D is suggested by ICANN to be consolidated and trimmed to the following five people:
Theresa Swinehart -- responsible at ICANN for both processes (NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN accountability). She is on in her role as ICANN being the facilitator of the process.
Ergys Ramaj and Alice Jansen -- core support to the Coordination Group to provide whatever is needed to the Coordination group including meeting support, liaising with the interpretation and translation services, meetings team, IT teams, and any other logistical and administrative support.
Jim Tengrove, assisted by Hillary Jett, are responsible for ICG-related Communications, including updates to the website.
In addition, these four people that are (or have been) subscribed are:
Tracy Hackshaw -- interim appointed GAC member, who following the ICG decision to accept all 5 proposed GAC members, was removed from the mailing-list this weekend.
Sam Dickinson -- is not ICANN staff, but was engaged and paid for by ICANN for the purposes of the London meeting and any minutes, writing, or other support.
Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad which are back-ups to the core contact Team.
Now to the issues, with suggested actions where appropriate:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
My conclusion on the process is that there is a difference between members of the ICG and Liaisons.
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.
I do understand this was not explicitly discussed in London.
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
2. Support staff
Until CG have a secretariat in place, I think the current set of staff support (Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim and Hillary) have proven to work effectively, on our request, and can very well continue to function as the interim secretariat for ICG until further notice.
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
Tracy is now removed from the list as GAC has appointed the five members.
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
4. Minutes of our meeting
Sam Dickinson has been taking minutes from our first meeting. ICANN has asked ICG whether we do think that was useful and whether we are interested in similar needs in the future. As we have not resolved our ideas with a secretariat yet, and we are still (at least myself) digesting minutes from first meeting, I think having a discussion on future minutes is premature.
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
As noted above, Jamie Hedlund and Grace Abuhamad are on the mailing list as backup contacts. ICANN has suggested that as the ICG is now up and running, they are removed from our mailing list and otherwise special treatment compared to other ICANN staff. In fact, they have as far as I understand already been removed from the list already.
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.
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.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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
Just to recall that in respect of 6 I have suggested that "Write Access" needs to come with a document system that supports showing both edits and attribution of authorship. On 7/30/2014 8:35 AM, 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:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
My apologies Joseph if that was not clear in what I wrote below. That was the intention of listing you in that separate category. Thanks for the clarification. Patrik On 30 Jul 2014, at 14:46, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Just to recall that in respect of 6 I have suggested that "Write Access" needs to come with a document system that supports showing both edits and attribution of authorship. On 7/30/2014 8:35 AM, 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:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I support this element. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: joseph alhadeff Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:46 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Participation in ICG - 6 points to reach consensus on Just to recall that in respect of 6 I have suggested that "Write Access" needs to come with a document system that supports showing both edits and attribution of authorship. On 7/30/2014 8:35 AM, 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: 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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
Hi Patrik, Sorry I missed commenting on your bellow email, on short leave with limited Internet access. I do support your raised 5 points, for no.6, supporting option "D" with Joe suggestion to introduce authors auditing/changes tracking mechanism. Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:35, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 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:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Mohamed. Patrik On 30 jul 2014, at 23:34, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir@mbash.net> wrote:
Hi Patrik,
Sorry I missed commenting on your bellow email, on short leave with limited Internet access.
I do support your raised 5 points, for no.6, supporting option "D" with Joe suggestion to introduce authors auditing/changes tracking mechanism.
Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:35, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 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:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Patrik for this analysis – it is helpful in getting thoughts in order! My thoughts on the six questions are: 1. Liaisons: I would generally agree that the role of the two liaisons is about making sure that the committee is informed about the issues related to the operation of the IANA service and the role of ICANN in the current environment. I agree that it would be inappropriate for them to be directly involved in the decisions, and that their role in the discussions should be based on factual input on the current situation. 2. Support Staff: Again I would agree – we need support staff and the current team has shown that it can provide this in a neutral way. 3. Interim GAC member: Agreed. Tracy did a great job stepping in as he did. GAC has now identified its representatives. 4. Secretariat: Again agreed, that Sam should be included as support staff until we have come to a final agreement on arrangements. I’d go one step further and also suggest that Sam could usefully be tasked with support on discussion threads (I was out of contact from 17.30 on 18 June until 8.00 on the 29th and am still trying to catch up with the discussions and which were still open!). We do need a secretariat and my only criteria are that it reports directly to the committee (through the chair(s)) and is clear that the line of responsibility is to the committee. 5. ICANN Back-up: Agreed. 6. Write Access: I’m quite neutral on this so long as we are quite clear on the rules. I’d be inclined to allow members, liaisons & support staff so long as all respect their “roles and responsibilities” ;-) . Most important is that the editor is clearly signalled so we know who has edited what. I’d actually expect liaison and support staff editing would be very limited. Proposals from outside the group should be kept separate. Hope this helps Martin On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:35, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> 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: 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Martin! Patrik On 31 Jul 2014, at 12:36, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks Patrik for this analysis – it is helpful in getting thoughts in order!
My thoughts on the six questions are:
1. Liaisons: I would generally agree that the role of the two liaisons is about making sure that the committee is informed about the issues related to the operation of the IANA service and the role of ICANN in the current environment. I agree that it would be inappropriate for them to be directly involved in the decisions, and that their role in the discussions should be based on factual input on the current situation.
2. Support Staff: Again I would agree – we need support staff and the current team has shown that it can provide this in a neutral way.
3. Interim GAC member: Agreed. Tracy did a great job stepping in as he did. GAC has now identified its representatives.
4. Secretariat: Again agreed, that Sam should be included as support staff until we have come to a final agreement on arrangements. I’d go one step further and also suggest that Sam could usefully be tasked with support on discussion threads (I was out of contact from 17.30 on 18 June until 8.00 on the 29thand am still trying to catch up with the discussions and which were still open!). We do need a secretariat and my only criteria are that it reports directly to the committee (through the chair(s)) and is clear that the line of responsibility is to the committee.
5. ICANN Back-up: Agreed.
6. Write Access: I’m quite neutral on this so long as we are quite clear on the rules. I’d be inclined to allow members, liaisons & support staff so long as all respect their “roles and responsibilities” ;-) . Most important is that the editor is clearly signalled so we know who has edited what. I’d actually expect liaison and support staff editing would be very limited. Proposals from outside the group should be kept separate.
Hope this helps
Martin
On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:35, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 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:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I did not see the original message from Patrik due to limited connections at my location. I do support the 5 points raised, and on the 6th, I support option D as it seems the most practical alternative taking into account Joe's suggestions as well. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 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: 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Mary, Patrik On 31 jul 2014, at 02:33, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
I did not see the original message from Patrik due to limited connections at my location.
I do support the 5 points raised, and on the 6th, I support option D as it seems the most practical alternative taking into account Joe's suggestions as well.
Mary Uduma
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 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:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Answers embedded below. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
Agree
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.
Agree
3. Interim appointed GAC member
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
Definitely. [insert applause]
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).
Agreed
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.
Agreed
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.
I argue there is no 'one size fits all'. With each document it will be appropriate for one of the above to apply. With each document there needs to be clear accountability/stewardship of the document so that the errors, omissions, clarifications etc get included and version id's incremented etc. Secretariats are highly useful for that task. A Secretariat can be directed by a Steward. I would say if we can state clearly where there is a requirement for a document to have model A, B, C or D, then it be specified when the Steward for any particular document be designated. I would also want to ensure that we can manage the transparency, probity and conflict of issues that arise in these sorts of tasks. I would not also want to put any of the ICANN staff in the delicate situation of being caught in - well - delicate situations. Thanks Patrik for your compilation Narelle Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 30.07.14 14:35 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
Agree.
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.
Agree.
3. Interim appointed GAC member
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
Agree.
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).
I disagree if this means waiting to pubish minutes until this is resolved. I agree if we continue pragmatically to construct minutes from our first meeting. We should publish agreed minutes from our meetings as soon as practical. We can use the work of Sam as a basis after she has worked in our respective comments. We should agree on minutes at our next meeting. If we cannot at least agree on minutes of what happened we have achieved very little.
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.
Agree. My general attitude is to avoid being anal about these things. If someone misbehaves when writing to a list with posting restrictions it can be rectified easily and quickly. If someone has something substantive to say and refrains from doing so because it is too cumbersome that can be bad.
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
I find myself agreeing with Joseph.
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBU9oyQ9DY5Emqa716AQJzSRAAr4lvofbNFdPKhQ01wDALSXas15r4zB5O Jt1pUcQ8eJ6KeXTdhx39Cb7eVRyo/Io2aLx9CosWwjKdCfzeWm4/zkXZrXvC2FDb ASCPx+33y6kot6hCL0iQ40xRNZ8PgAdI6hchg1ZPv7KiqPjOHyuOshlGEKqWmTdH FdC3sacyM4ZzlrrVobg2OdB5hcqG40TjzKEzcJU8w/yAX/AMZU3jvWQVHNIq8ytz HQNFllokhbQ+TxHQ/FGGy3JYC8C3GcVThyVugD73wVtqtgh0oTucD33EnzVqdSex /fNiYSnu4BiOQ27I6yujDgCz1K7Usk+YGDaFQcybQrYXbscrl4YdsY+VJlKxWGzn jUMm4J99yOn8GSV+FABO3FFv11I00Nj1/4Kv9CLop9JniatAsdMXA03CLpoZtVgG NVwI0X126mvVTK/e0iYVR24BWJMH9gKvZ4P6ZP5rK5lQ63ap+/l54ZOwgOkR0sep xnaYJX+CZROTVfMHf1nxauH3w20Rjes7i/iNG1kW2I4dUmnX4FIn4spXHKR8WShB OeSL5S2E6DjUcZUai20hN5cxPppREBaOZfU4TTb38AOdJsOgXdT0EnYt+A8qT4Rj k/K702h6BT+uTJCqOHOaBAX+6PdRlFCunaKKWQq6tsw1jNsv927s3+rGonS9ItzL ZrSWp34/zyI= =EGwc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thought that this letter from U.S. Senators Thune and Rubio might be of interest to the group: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/?a=files.serve&File_id=80ea5... Best, Jon On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 30.07.14 14:35 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
1. Members and liaisons to ICG
Suggestion: When consensus is to be reached, consensus is only among members (not members+liaisons).
Agree.
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.
Agree.
3. Interim appointed GAC member
Suggestion: The IGC thank Tracy for the ability to participate.
Agree.
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).
I disagree if this means waiting to pubish minutes until this is resolved. I agree if we continue pragmatically to construct minutes from our first meeting. We should publish agreed minutes from our meetings as soon as practical. We can use the work of Sam as a basis after she has worked in our respective comments. We should agree on minutes at our next meeting. If we cannot at least agree on minutes of what happened we have achieved very little.
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.
Agree. My general attitude is to avoid being anal about these things. If someone misbehaves when writing to a list with posting restrictions it can be rectified easily and quickly. If someone has something substantive to say and refrains from doing so because it is too cumbersome that can be bad.
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
I find myself agreeing with Joseph.
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQIVAwUBU9oyQ9DY5Emqa716AQJzSRAAr4lvofbNFdPKhQ01wDALSXas15r4zB5O Jt1pUcQ8eJ6KeXTdhx39Cb7eVRyo/Io2aLx9CosWwjKdCfzeWm4/zkXZrXvC2FDb ASCPx+33y6kot6hCL0iQ40xRNZ8PgAdI6hchg1ZPv7KiqPjOHyuOshlGEKqWmTdH FdC3sacyM4ZzlrrVobg2OdB5hcqG40TjzKEzcJU8w/yAX/AMZU3jvWQVHNIq8ytz HQNFllokhbQ+TxHQ/FGGy3JYC8C3GcVThyVugD73wVtqtgh0oTucD33EnzVqdSex /fNiYSnu4BiOQ27I6yujDgCz1K7Usk+YGDaFQcybQrYXbscrl4YdsY+VJlKxWGzn jUMm4J99yOn8GSV+FABO3FFv11I00Nj1/4Kv9CLop9JniatAsdMXA03CLpoZtVgG NVwI0X126mvVTK/e0iYVR24BWJMH9gKvZ4P6ZP5rK5lQ63ap+/l54ZOwgOkR0sep xnaYJX+CZROTVfMHf1nxauH3w20Rjes7i/iNG1kW2I4dUmnX4FIn4spXHKR8WShB OeSL5S2E6DjUcZUai20hN5cxPppREBaOZfU4TTb38AOdJsOgXdT0EnYt+A8qT4Rj k/K702h6BT+uTJCqOHOaBAX+6PdRlFCunaKKWQq6tsw1jNsv927s3+rGonS9ItzL ZrSWp34/zyI= =EGwc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks for spearheading this, Patrik. Looking at the thread here, it appears we have consensus to move forward. There is broad agreement on your first five points below. I chatted offline with Milton about #6 and I think we can all live with option D on the condition that all file revisions must be done with track changes turned on. So please go ahead and implement the appropriate Dropbox permissions. Thanks much, Alissa On 7/30/14, 5:35 AM, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> 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:
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
Alissa, According to the conclusions below I have now added access to the Dropbox for the following by sending invitations to them: Elise, Kuo-Wei, Theresa, Ergys, Alice, Jim, Hillary and Samantha. Patrik On 11 Aug 2014, at 22:44, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Thanks for spearheading this, Patrik.
Looking at the thread here, it appears we have consensus to move forward. There is broad agreement on your first five points below. I chatted offline with Milton about #6 and I think we can all live with option D on the condition that all file revisions must be done with track changes turned on. So please go ahead and implement the appropriate Dropbox permissions.
Thanks much, Alissa
On 7/30/14, 5:35 AM, "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> 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:
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
participants (17)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Hartmut Richard Glaser -
Jon Nevett -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Martin Boyle -
Mary Uduma -
Milton L Mueller -
Mohamed El Bashir -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben