[Internal-cg] Agenda for call #8
jjs at dyalog.net
Wed Nov 26 02:47:30 UTC 2014
1) I agree with Joe and others who were on ICG Call 8, that we should avoid giving (or be seen to give) ICANN any special status in the consultation process.
2) In her draft, Lynn suggests that feedback from the ICANN Board or Staff should be notified to the ICG "exceptionally through its Liaisons". For the ICG, the "natural interlocutor" must remain the ICANN Board, not Staff. Also, ICANN has already chosen its channel of communication with us by appointing its Liaisons. Therefore, the ICG cannot stipulate who from ICANN should interact with us: that is necessarily through the designated Liaisons.
----- Mail original -----
De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at icann.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 26 Novembre 2014 01:51:42
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Agenda for call #8
One question about your comments. I think we are setting the ICANN
board up to have some sort of ultimate veto. They have the obligation
to keep on top of developments as we draft, like everyone else. That is
the way they can responsibly exercise tier fiduciary duty. I don't
think they have one last bite of the apple, except as to any changes
that were made between the final and the next to final draft. Since we
have been an inclusive and representative community based process since
the outset, I am hard pressed to see a basis for them have to come to a
different conclusion in the "community interest".
On 11/25/2014 4:36 PM, Lynn St.Amour 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)
> 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