[Internal-cg] Agenda for call #8
Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Wed Nov 26 00:37:38 UTC 2014
I actually think that, with liaisons from both the Board and from the IANA team, any problems should be identified by the liaison prior to Singapore. Why else do we have liaisons other than to indicate the practicalities of the options we (and the communities) are identifying? Not a formal thing, just the normal reason for giving privileged access.
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 25 November 2014 23:58
To: Lynn St.Amour
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #8
Thanks, Lynn. Comments below.
On Nov 25, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
> Hi Patrik, all, (sent this earlier but cannot see where this went out, so apologies if it is a duplicate).
> Unfortunately I cannot make tonight's meeting due to some calendar confusion. Alissa has offered to shepherd the discussion on proposal submission expectations, and I thank her.
> With respect to the minutes, I have read and support approving all three sets.
> I also suggested a few edits to the Proposal Submission Expectations document, and expanded the final section based on a comment from Alissa (that last change is included here for ease). The document was also updated in dropbox.
> 6 c. The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site.
> Should ICANN or the ICANN Board have concerns over their ability to support (and hence transmit) the proposal, it is imperative that this be indicated in a timely enough manner in order to allow resolution of any open items within the established timeline.
> <NEW> To that end, the ICG is requesting that ICANN or the ICANN Board formally indicate any questions or issues that might prevent their full support of the final proposal at the following points:
> - First Draft Proposal (in mid-April to allow time to address any questions or concerns)
> - Development of the Final Proposal (during the week of the 21-25 June at the ICANN meeting)
This is a little different from what I was asking about, which is what happens if the Board feels it cannot transmit the final proposal, targeted for July time frame. What do we want them to do? Write us? Call us? Have a meeting? Should we establish an expected time frame for resolution in this document?
I think we can separately document expectations about ICANN staff/board engagement in the process up to the final proposal transmission. Personally I'm not sure that we want to make explicit requests for "formal" input during the process from any constituency that would be different from any other.
> Hope you have a good meeting and again apologies for not being able to make it.
> Best regards,
> On Nov 21, 2014, at 4:02 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> New agenda:
>> * Minutes approval for Oct 1, 17, and 29 meetings - Chair
>> * Discussion of proposal submission expectations - Lynn
>> * Updates from the communities - Chair
>> * Logistics etc for Singapore meeting - Patrik
>>> On 21 nov 2014, at 02:38, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> Thanks, Patrik. I'd like to add one item at the top of the agenda:
>>> * Minutes approval for Oct 1, 17, and 29 meetings
>>> On Nov 20, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>> Next call, #8, on Wednesday, 26 November 02:00-03:00 UTC we will discuss:
>>>> * Discussion of proposal submission expectations - Lynn
>>>> * Updates from the communities - Chair
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg