[Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language

Daniel Karrenberg daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Fri Oct 10 07:25:48 UTC 2014

I am afraid that at this stage and in this environment this is not a minor issue. The  communities/stakeholders have accepted ICANN as the convener of the ICG. I expect only reaistance from the perception of a change that appeas to  give ICANN a new and unforseen material role after that. Note well that at this stage it does not matter whether this was in fact unforeseen. 

Maybe a way out of this is for us to both independently publish the proposal and 'transnit' it to both ICANN and NTIA simultaneously by adding a nice cover letter from our chairs. That way NTIA can take notice as soon as we are ready and anything ICANN may or may not do appears to have less material conseuence.


Sent from a handheld device.

> On 08.10.2014, at 23:39, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> Hi all,
> The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
> "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
> I suggest that we should update this to say:
> "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
> Let me know what you think.
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list