[Internal-cg] Q14 (ICANN board) proposed text

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Fri Oct 17 22:46:05 UTC 2014

I agree it is preferable to use the exact language coming from NTIA: not less, but certainly not more.


----- Mail original -----
De: "Keith Drazek" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
À: internal-cg at icann.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 17 Octobre 2014 15:41:31
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Q14 (ICANN board) proposed text

Thanks Milton. 

Perhaps we should use the language used by Fiona Alexander, as follows, instead of “for legal reasons”…. 

Here’s what she said in her email to us: “Consistent with procurement rules, ICANN must be the party that formally submits the transition proposal to NTIA.” 

Also, a separate comment, we have one Board Liaison (Kuo-wei Wu) and one Staff Liaison (Elise Gerich), not two Board liaisons. 



From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller 
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27 PM 
To: internal-cg at icann.org 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Q14 (ICANN board) proposed text 

What is the role of the ICANN board in preparing the proposal? 

The ICG is independent of the ICANN board. The board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons, who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the board informed about our deliberations. The board is not authorized to modify or approve the ICG's proposal, but for legal reasons, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN board. 

Milton L Mueller 

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor 

Syracuse University School of Information Studies 


Internet Governance Project 


Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list