[Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Tue Sep 30 11:15:55 UTC 2014

Many thanks Martin .. I've noted your concern on Q9 1/2 and added the sentence you proposed to Q14's answer .. I have incorporated all comments, to my best, in the attached version and in Dropbox .. Hope this reflects accurately what has been suggested ..

I'm not clear about the modifications you are suggesting for Q15 & Q16, so apologies for that ..


I also recall that we, the drafting group, have agreed to share a clean version with ICG colleagues, so if you have comments pending from earlier drafting iterations appreciate adding them or letting me know ..


Kind Regards



From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..


I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2.  Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue.


On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals."


For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric!  In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that  this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Sep 2014, at 10:48, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

	Many thanks Milton ..

	Noted .. 

	Further comments inline below ..


	Kind Regards



	From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
	Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM
	To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at icann.org
	Subject: RE: ICG FAQ ..


	Manal et al


	Good start. 


	I would propose the following modifications. 


	Add a new           question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ :


	9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? 


	You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG's hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process.


	[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..  


	On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language: 


	ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process <https://community.icann.org/category/accountability> . After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment.


	[MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on ..


	On Question 15, "How is ICG reaching out?"  I would delete the language "ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session <http://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-iana-stewardship-transition>  held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and  

	If someone asks that question now they don't care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now. 


	[MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event.


	From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
	Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM
	To: internal-cg at icann.org
	Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..


	Dear All ..


	Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call ..

	This is supposed to be a living document ..  So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one ..


	Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call ..


	Kind Regards


	Internal-cg mailing list
	Internal-cg at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140930/d90ce9c1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-FAQ-v1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 73728 bytes
Desc: ICG-FAQ-v1.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140930/d90ce9c1/ICG-FAQ-v1.doc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list