[Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
adiel at afrinic.net
Fri Oct 10 02:38:45 UTC 2014
Alissa, I’m more with Lynn’s first wording.
On Oct 9, 2014, at 18:03 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> 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.”
> "If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN".
> 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.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg