[CCWG-ACCT] 17 UTC deadline for final edits

[Greg Shatan]

In the prior draft, there were square brackets around "to be provided by
the root server operators."  These were removed in this draft, creating
ambiguity (at best).  We need to put the brackets back, so it says:

"Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root server system. In
this role, ICANN's mission is *[*to be provided by the root server operators
*]*."

We might want to be even simpler about it and avoid all confusion (plus we
may not want to give the impression that we will take the root server
operators' language verbatim):

"Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root server system. In
this role, ICANN's mission is *[*to be provided*]*."

Greg


On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
wrote:

> I have reviewed the latest draft (on my phone while sitting at the airport
> in Joao Pessoa) and find it to be a substantial improvement over the
> previous version. I think it is informative, accurate and I see no
> significant substantive issues or errors that should prevent its
> publication.
>
> I do have one clarifying question. On page 21, under Recommendation #5,
> Mission bullet #2, the language says,
>
> "Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root server system. In
> this role, ICANN's mission is to be provided by the root server operators."
>
>
> What do we mean by the word "provided" in this context? Are we waiting for
> language from the RSSAC, or do we mean "performed by" the root server
> operators. Or something different? Apologies but our intent is not clear to
> me.
>
> Thanks to all who have worked on this important document.
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> As announced on your call #67, this is to kindly remind you that final
> edits on the attached draft Formal Update (circulated on 12 November) are
> needed by *17:00 UTC today.*
> As indicated on the call, no line edits will be taken into account.
> Co-Chairs are asking for content related comments.
> Per the note below, any format, font and proofreading issues are being
> addressed by a professional writer.
> Thank you,
> Best regards
> Alice
> From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 12:04 AM
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
>
> All,
>
> As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal
> Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting.
>
> The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any
> issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist.
>
> This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received
> with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted,
> but a majority were taken on.
>
> We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we
> have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments.
>
> Bernard Turcotte
> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG
>
> for the CCWG Co-chairs.
>
> <ShortProposalUpdate-2.0.pdf>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151113/aaa70bef/attachment.html>