[Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015

[Manal Ismail]

Thanks Patrik and Joe for noting the distinction .. 

Just to make sure we're on the same page, in both cases we should be receiving written clarification / written response from the 'token holder' / the relevant OC respectively, right? I believe we need something in writing to be attached or annexed to the relevant submitted proposal ..

 

Appreciate your confirmation ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal 

 

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 2:53 AM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015

 

Patrik:

I think I understand the distinction you are making and it goes to the formal nature of the question and the need for a community response, versus the need for a response/clarification less formally provided by an appropriate representative.  I would just highlight that where the clarification is requested within the course of the meeting, the response however informal is to the ICG as whole, and as such subject to inclusion in transcripts and minutes.  I don't suggest you were implying otherwise, just wanted to clarify.

Joe   

On 2/7/2015 7:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

	All,
	 
	I have a clarification question on the below two action points.
	 
	Background: If ICG members do bring up issues, there are (at least) two different kind of issues / questions.
	 
	A. Clarifications that ICG members want to have (in writing) which the what I call "token holder" inside the ICG can create. This is what I would call *INTERNAL* communication. This can directly be an action point by the "token holder" to create this writeup. The interaction will be visible in the mailing list archive, list of action points and minutes from the meetings.
	 
	B. Questions that ICG send to the OC for clarification. This is to be formally sent to the OC, and a timer start ticking when we wait for action by the OC. These questions are to be sent by ICG Chair (Alissa), specifically posted on the ICG web page etc part from of course be visible in the minutes etc like [a].
	 
	Quite often [B] is preceded by [A].
	 
	When looking at these two action points, and trying to remember the discussion:
	 

		2. Arkko to compile a list of for a request for information from the protocol parameters community re jurisdiction, NTIA oversight and send it to internal-cg list.
		3. Wilson to request clarification from CRISP team, questions put forth by Arasteh (regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the numbers proposal).

	 
	I in fact do think both are of class [A] above, i.e. the 2nd is *NOT* for ICG to send a question to the Numbers OC, at least not at this stage.
	 
	I.e. both action items should be actions on the token holder to do a writeup on summary of the discussions, and because of this, they should be:
	 
	2. Arkko to do write up of jurisdiction and NTIA oversight in the Protocols OC.
	3. Wilson to do write up clarification re. questions put forth by Arasteh regarding Section II.B.2 and III.A of the Numbers OC.
	 
	I do NOT see any of these two at this stage be communication between ICG and OC. But the 2nd might be.
	 
	Whether things are class A and class B is and must also be driven by information from the token holder. That person MIGHT rather want things ICG might believe is class A to in fact be class B so that it is a more formal response.
	 
	   Patrik
	 

	
	
	
	

	_______________________________________________
	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/20150210/9fd7c620/attachment.html>