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

[Manal Ismail]

Dear Jandyr ..

Many thanks to you, Lynn and Xiadong ..
I was under the impression that you were preparing text for Q#16 ..
Anyway, I have edited the answer to Q#15 to reflect the minor modifications suggested by the drafting group  as well as the slight modification suggested by Joseph Alhadeff, and have moved James Bladel text as an answer to Q#16 ..
I'll attach the file and answers of both questions to a separate message for the convenience of everyone ..

Thanks again for the helpful text that enjoyed colleagues support ..

Kind Regards
--Manal
PS: I don't have a strong position here but I was not in favour of adding names, of Board liaison and IANA expert to the answer of Q#15

-----Original Message-----
From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [mailto:jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:35 PM
To: Manal Ismail; Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: RES: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board

Dear Manal, Jean-Jacques, colleagues,

As you remember Alissa asked 3 of us (Lynn, Xiadong and myself) to draft a possible compromise text to Q#15 on the role of the ICANN Board in submitting the transition proposal to the NTIA.

Here it is a possible draft that tries to merge in a single text multiple suggestions on the issue.


The ICG is independent of the ICANN board. The board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (Mrs Elise Gerich, IANA Staff Expert; and  Mr Kuo-Wei Wu, ICANN Board Liaison), who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the board and ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN board can submit public comments to the ICG about the final proposal. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal. When the ICG submits its final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.



Hope it can be useful.

Best regards,

Jandyr


-----Mensagem original-----
De: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Manal Ismail
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2014 08:29
Para: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board

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
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg