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

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Wed Oct 22 10:28:42 UTC 2014


Thanks Jean-Jacques ..
Fair enough .. Then we still have 3 alternative drafts on the table ..

Any weighing preferences from other colleagues?

Kind Regards
--Manal

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:59 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:

> Thanks Manal.
> I still prefer my wording, which refers to a document, and that's an advantage. 
> If my proposal was not accepted, I could agree with Milton's suggestion (as already indicated in a previous email). 
> James' formulation, which merely expresses an expectation, is weaker than both Milton's and mine.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "Demi Getschko" <epusp75 at gmail.com>, internal-cg at icann.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Octobre 2014 11:45:55
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
> 
> 
> So here is where we stand on this now ..
> 
> [Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to
> modify or approve the ICG's proposal.]
> or
> [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in
> transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not
> modify the Plan itself.]
> or
> [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved
> consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational
> Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully
> transmitted to NTIA.]
> 
> Any preferences for other colleagues .. 
> Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation
> does this mean I should delete the second alternative?  
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM
> To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg at icann.org'
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN
> board
> 
> Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> +1
>> demi
>> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
>> 
>> That works.
>> 
>> On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>> "does not have community approval" suits me.
>>> 
>>> Jean-Jacques.
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> 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