[Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language

Subrenat, Jean-Jacques jjs at dyalog.net
Thu Oct 9 20:21:02 UTC 2014


Hi Alissa,

I'm afraid this is not a small, "minor" issue. What is at stake is
- the independence of the Coordination Group with regard to existing entities, e.g. ICANN,
- the perception that the NTIA or some other federal authority has had second thoughts and, as a result, is moving the goal posts,
- the questionable manner of communicating this shifting of goal posts by an oral communication to a member of the ICG.

This new suggestion or demand is not acceptable. I request that the ICG Chair draw the attention of the US authorities
- to the fact that this would amount to a change in the rules governing the Transition exercise once the game has started,
- to the risk of sending a negative message about the impartiality of the ICG in setting up and proposing a Transition plan,
- to the danger of raising concerns, in some quarters, about the determination of the USG about transitioning,
- to the need to respect a parallel form (the NTIA statement of April 2014 was a formal, very public announcement and undertaking, whereas the change suggested this time is meant to appear as a "minor" issue).

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir at mbash.net>
À: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Octobre 2014 21:42:56
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language




Thanks Russ, agree with the updated text. 



Kind Regards, 
Mohamed 


On 9 Oct 2014, at 20:45, Russ Housley < housley at vigilsec.com > wrote: 




Here is an update to the timeline document that includes these changes. 

Russ 




<TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx> 





On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: 



Hi Alissa, 





Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc..) to someone so that it can be considered or approved". 





To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say: 





"If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.” 





or 





"If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN". 








Best, 


Lynn 














On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > wrote: 







Hi all, 









The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7: 









"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA." 









I suggest that we should update this to say: 









"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.” 









Let me know what you think. 









Thanks, 




Alissa 




_______________________________________________ 
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



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list