[Internal-cg] Charter comments summary

[Paul Wilson]

+1




On 22 Aug 2014, at 10:15 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> I agree with Joe that “review” is better than “assess.” Otherwise I think the charter is ready to go.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> On 8/19/14, 7:05 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> This seems fine, just want to make sure that "assess" does not imply the need to respond to each point on why its taken on board or not.  Would "review" achieve the same end with less potential to misread?
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/19/2014 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> This is a new version based on comments that I received during the call. The changes from the version that I posted before the call are:
>>> 
>>> - add the word “independent” in front of the accountability requirement per James’ request
>>> - change “Internet community” to “global multi-stakeholder community” per Russ’ off-line request that supported Richard Hill’s original comment
>>> - add the requirement for the ICG to compile and assess also the input received beyond the operational communities
>>> 
>>> Change bars are included.
>>> 
>>> As discussed on the call, this is the version that we plan to go ahead with. If you have an issue with this version, please notify the ICG of this within the next week, i.e., before end of business on Tuesday, August 26th.
>>> 
>>> Jari Arkko
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> 
>>> Internal-cg at icann.orghttps://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