[Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Tue Oct 21 14:04:12 UTC 2014

@Joe +1,
I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of ICANN.
That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation. Legally, we can't say more.


----- Mail original -----
De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: jjs at dyalog.net, mueller at syr.edu
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
Envoyé: Samedi 18 Octobre 2014 02:54:03
Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board

I'm not sure the nature of our charter is binding on the board in a legal sense.  I would think we can find other words of equal strength that don't implicate a statement of legal fact. 

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
Received: Friday, 17 Oct 2014, 5:25PM
To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs at dyalog.net]
CC: internal-cg at icann.org [internal-cg at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board

> -----Original Message-----
> - we must avoid discussing whether another body (ICANN Board, in this case)
> is "authorized" or not to undertake any action. I suggest "Consistent with its

I don't agree. ICANN's board is not authorized to alter the proposal. It's factually correct and the simplest way to say it. An FAQ should make things clear and simple, not obfuscate. 

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

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list