[Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
Manal Ismail
manal at tra.gov.eg
Wed Oct 22 10:28:42 UTC 2014
Thanks Jean-Jacques ..
Fair enough .. Then we still have 3 alternative drafts on the table ..
Any weighing preferences from other colleagues?
Kind Regards
--Manal
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:59 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> Thanks Manal.
> I still prefer my wording, which refers to a document, and that's an advantage.
> If my proposal was not accepted, I could agree with Milton's suggestion (as already indicated in a previous email).
> James' formulation, which merely expresses an expectation, is weaker than both Milton's and mine.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "Demi Getschko" <epusp75 at gmail.com>, internal-cg at icann.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Octobre 2014 11:45:55
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
>
>
> So here is where we stand on this now ..
>
> [Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to
> modify or approve the ICG's proposal.]
> or
> [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in
> transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not
> modify the Plan itself.]
> or
> [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved
> consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational
> Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully
> transmitted to NTIA.]
>
> Any preferences for other colleagues ..
> Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation
> does this mean I should delete the second alternative?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM
> To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg at icann.org'
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN
> board
>
> Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> +1
>> demi
>> From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
>>
>> That works.
>>
>> On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>> "does not have community approval" suits me.
>>>
>>> Jean-Jacques.
> _______________________________________________
> 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