[Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17

Wed Sep 17 10:31:05 UTC 2014

TOP URGENT
Martin,
Alissa
Please and please provide an editorially updated doc. possibly with new
reference called Draft for Conference call from Alissa by styopping any
further perfection of text just few hours before Conference call
Regards
Kavouss

2014-09-17 12:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  Thanks Manal:  as you say, these are all quite forward drafting changes
> and do make the text much clearer, without altering the intentions of the
> text.  I’m a great fan of saying things as clearly as we can, so I’d be
> happy with adopting all of these proposals while not re-opening the text to
> further discussion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Manal Ismail
> *Sent:* 17 September 2014 11:35
> *To:* Alissa Cooper; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
>
>
>
> Many thanks Alissa and all who have contributed to this document ..
>
> I'm sending my editorial remarks below following your suggestion ..
>
> It's worth noting that I'm flexible to revert to the original language
> wherever deemed more appropriate ..
>
>
>
> Page 1:
>
> -          4th paragraph under 2. : replace capital 'M' of 'ICG Members'
> with small 'm' for consistency
>
>
>
> -          I've tried the url at the footnote and it did not work (might
> be my problem but worth someone else checking) ..
>
>
>
> Page 2:
>
> -          3rd paragraph under 3. : For cases for which where it has been
> previously agreed that a decision is to be made at a given meeting and one
> or more members are not  in a position to attend present at that meeting,
> these members  may provide their views to the ICG in advance in order that
> those views be considered at the scheduled meeting for decision making.
> Should the decision made not meet the requirements views of those absent,
> there should be another attempt to find a suitable compromise. Absent
> members  should be invited to provide the ICG with a written statement of
> their concerns for inclusion in the report /conclusions of the ICG.
>
>
>
> -          4th paragraph under 3. : I suggest the deletion of this
> paragraph as, to me, it is completely redundant to paragraph 3 above .. if
> it was decided to remain, there's a missing full-stop at the end of the
> paragraph ..
>
>
>
> I do not dare to suggest any changes on the following pages J ..
>
>
>
> Hope you find the above straight forward non-substantial changes ..
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:40 AM
> *To:* joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Attached and in Dropbox are the versions we will use on the call on Sept
> 17:
>
>
>
> ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC.docx
>
> ICG Guidelines for the Decision Making-v12-MU-ALC-JA-ALC-clean.docx
>
>
>
> All of the changes since v12-MU-ALC are editorial (mostly typo fixes and
> white space deletions), except one: on page 1, I added the text suggested
> by Joe about public comment periods. The editorial fixes include the
> suggestions made by Joe, Wolf-Ulrich, Kavouss, and Milton (off-list).
>
>
>
> If people spot further editorial issues prior to the call, please send
> them in email to the mailing list, rather than editing the document
> directly, and I will incorporate them prior to the call.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> On 9/16/14, 5:14 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Alissa, Colleagues:
>
> The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing...  I have
> proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example
> use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments,
> propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
>
> One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to
> consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for
> decisions...  Possible language which could be added to making decisions
> could be:
>
> ICG will make all reasonable efforts  to enable member stakeholder
> communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on
> issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions.  Where appropriate
> and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided .
>
> Joe
>
> On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
>  I am at another meeting
>
> I have  read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every
> points.
>
> Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140917/7af8572c/attachment.html>