<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hello Manal, my preference is the first proposal. I will be ok with the second option if the sentence is changed to read:<div><br></div><div>“… . That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition <b>proposal</b> in the ICG’s hands, <b>while</b> its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process.”</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>- a.</div><div> <br>On Dec 4, 2014, at 03:10 AM, Manal Ismail <<a href="mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Apologies for my delayed reply ..<br>I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals ..<br>So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward:<br>Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place?<br>You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG’s hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration.<br><br>Another alternative can be, just to delete ‘IANA’, to read as follows:<br>Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place?<br>You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG’s hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration.<br><br> <br>The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting ‘IANA’ instances replaced by ‘IANA functions’ ..<br> <br>Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with ..<br> <br>Kind Regards<br>--Manal<br> <br>From: Milton L Mueller [<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mailto:mueller@syr.edu</a>] <br>Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM<br>To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org'<br>Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..<br> <br>I agree with Elise’s proposed change in question 9.<br>However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an “IANA transition” without also using the word “stewardship.” This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named “IANAPlan,” many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf<br>I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about.<br> <br>From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich<br>Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM<br>To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<br>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..<br> <br>Dear Manal,<br>You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with “functions operator” or “stewardship” or “functions”, and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below.<br> <br>1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous “IANA”. The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it.<br> <br>The ‘Operational Communities’ of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).<br> <br>2) For question 13, isn’t it more correct to say: “Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?” Added the word “stewardship” which is highlighted in yellow. The committee’s charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase “IANA transition” is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also.<br> <br>3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG…” Please modify IANA with “functions” or “stewardship” or “operator”. There is no entity called “IANA”.<br> <br>Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ.<br> <br>Best regards,<br>-- Elise <br> <br> <br>From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg><br>Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM<br>To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org><br>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..<br> <br>Dear All ..<br> <br>Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions ..<br>I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call ..<br> <br>I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now ..<br> <br>Awaiting your feedback ..<br> <br>Kind Regards<br>--Manal <br> <br>From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail<br>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM<br>To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<br>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..<br> <br>Thank you Wolf-Ulrich ..<br>I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 ..<br>Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too?<br> <br>Kind Regards<br>--Manal<br> <br>From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] <br>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM<br>To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org<br>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..<br> <br>Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap.<br> <br>I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted.<br><br>Best regards<br><br>Wolf-Ulrich<br><br> <br>From:Manal Ismail<br>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM<br>To:internal-cg@icann.org<br>Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..<br> <br>Dear All ..<br> <br>I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014:<br>"I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process."<br> <br>Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process ..<br> <br>If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest ..<br>I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version ..<br> <br>How does this sound?<br>Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward ..<br> <br>Kind Regards<br>--Manal<br>_______________________________________________<br>Internal-cg mailing list<br>Internal-cg@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg<br><span><ICG-FAQ-04Dec14 without 12 15.docx></span>_______________________________________________<br>Internal-cg mailing list<br>Internal-cg@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg<br></blockquote><br></div></body></html>