[Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Alissa,
All Others
I have now read the doc.
It is ok with me eventhiough it is not perfect .However, it is the results
of at least 80 additional exchange of e-mails in second round based on G11
for which I have the honour to coordinate.
However, as Milton indicated there are few areas that require strictly and
purely editorial alignment such as the passge below
"  *Factors of determination may include the nature and seriousness of the
objection, the scope of support for the objection – whole stakeholder
community (ies) or a subset of a or a number of communities and the attemps
that have been made to resolve those objections*" .
I leave it to Alissa to make this purely and strictly editorial correction
together with any other strictly and purely edits.
No other changes AT ALL
It is not perfect but reflects results of extensive works by all of us
Kavouss


2014-09-16 22:38 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:

>   Alissa, thank you very much for putting it together to an
> understandable document which I’m in agreement with.
>
> I’m also fine with Joe’s edits. I think changing the headline of 3. may
> consequently require to remove the indents a, b and c.
>
> In chapter 4. there is a typo in the penultimate line to c. It should read
> “from” instead “form”.
>
> Looking forward to find consensus on this document tomorrow.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  *From:* joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:14 PM
> *To:* internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus document - for discussion Sept 17
>
> Alissa, Colleagues:
>
> The draft is acceptable as is - thanks for your work on editing...  I have
> proposed a few non-substantive edits to improve understanding - for example
> use of public comment forum may be read not to include written comments,
> propose replacing forum with consultation, etc.
>
> One possible addition might be a reaffirmation of our commitment to
> consultation which should be differentiated from our 7 day period for
> decisions...  Possible language which could be added to making decisions
> could be:
>
> ICG will make all reasonable efforts  to enable member stakeholder
> communities to have appropriate time to consult with their members on
> issues on which the ICG will make substantive decisions.  Where
> appropriate and practicable, public comment periods will also be provided
> .
>
> Joe
>
> On 9/16/2014 4:40 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> I am at another meeting
> I have  read your edited text which seems to cover most or almost every
> points.
> Please let me to ck it again and come back to you
> Kavouss
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140916/c73f1ecd/attachment.html>