[Internal-cg] Role of the board
alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Oct 27 17:30:09 UTC 2014
I think they’re two-way.
On Oct 27, 2014, at 9:49 AM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> Is the role of the Liaisons only one way or are they supposed to also be keeping each of their respective communities informed of our developments which might trigger any relevant comments through the public process?
> On 10/27/2014 12:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Manal, all,
>> Thank you for your work on the FAQ and in particular the question about the role of the ICANN Board. I believe this is the most up-to-date text:
>> On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>>> The Q&A now reads:
>>> 15. What is the role of the ICANN Board in preparing the proposal?
>>> The ICG is independent of the ICANN Board. ICANN is represented on the ICG by two liaisons: one from the Board and one from the IANA staff. Both liaisons are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the Board and the ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN Board can submit comments through the established procedures for public comment. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN Board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify the proposal submitted by the ICG. When the ICG submits the final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well.
>>> Hope this sounds good for all ..
>>> Kind Regards
>> I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process. For example:
>> * The ICG expects all interested parties, including the ICANN Board and its members, to participate in the operational community processes for developing the transition plan.
>> * If concerns arise at the ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, for the Board to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN Board liaison.
>> * The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site.
>> * The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board.
>> * The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site.
>> * In the event that ICANN or the ICANN Board find that they are unable to transmit the proposal to NTIA, they will [do X].
>> * etc.
>> To me this goes beyond what we might put in an FAQ, and should be documented separately. It is a list of requirements of this sort that I was hoping Xiadong, Jandyr, and Lynn could come up with together and bring back to the full group for discussion. Once we have agreement on the list of requirements, I think we can send those back to the Board through Kuo to obtain agreement on both sides about the process to be followed.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg