[Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Tue Sep 30 21:43:30 UTC 2014


Thanks Manal and the other colleagues having prepared this draft.

My comments:

Q#2: “direct” and “indirect” stakeholders should be explained; maybe “direct stakeholders have an operational relationship to the IANA functions operator”.

Q#91/2: I think this should be phrased more firm rather than discussing options the ICG might have or not (...all the ICG can do...). Agree with Manal that we shall express what we shall do rather than what we cannot.

Q#14: here we definitely lock our timeline with the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. This could be a long lasting story. Will this serve as excuse for not meeting the deadline Sep 2015?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Manal Ismail 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:33 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh ; Alissa Cooper ; Patrik Fältström ; Mohamed El Bashir 
Cc: Coordination Group 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

Dear Mr. Arasteh ..

 

Allow me to re-iterate my reply to you regarding your very important questions ..

 

“I believe the excellent points you raise below should be addressed through the proposals we are expecting to receive .. I do not think we should pre-empt what the community will ultimately reach and express views through this FAQ ..”

In other words, those questions will be answered in the proposals submitted to the ICG ..

 

Looking forward to receiving your reply to the above .. 

I’m sure there are ICG members more capable of replying to your points on IANA ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:20 PM
To: Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper; Patrik Fältström; Mohamed El Bashir
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Martin Boyle; Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

 

Manal

Alissa,Patrik,mohamed 

Others

I disagree with Patrik that I should draft questions for the points that I raised

Alissia decided  to assign the prepartion of FAQ to Manal and Martin AND THEN WE RECEIVED THE DRAFR PREPARED.

Now I have made three rounds of questions .those who were assighned/ designated to prepare the draft of FAQ are kindly requested to put my points in the propoer questions usuing the style that was utilized before.

I am awaiting for these very important questions to be answered 

 

Moreover ,pls clarify what do you mean by

 

" I do not disagree that the IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA describes.  What the ICG is discussing is replacing the stewardship by NTIA for the IANA functions that the NTIA oversees.  The functions that NTIA oversees are described in the contract and those are the only activities done by the IANA department that have oversight by NTIA.   Any other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship"

.

1 Please advise  what  what are the actions that  IANA Department at ICANN does more than the contract with NTIA :

2Please also describe what are the IANA  functions that NTIA oversight ?Please cut and paste them from the contract as during the PUBLIC MEETING we could not refer to the contract as many people may not know that 

 

3,After transition who will oversight those actions? 


4. What are those other, non-contractual activities of the IANA department which may be described in SAC-067 have no contractual relationship with NTIA and it stewardship"?
5. After transition who will perform that : 

Regards

Kavouss  .

 

 

2014-09-30 19:36 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

 

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 

 

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk] 

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

MM: It seems then that the “real” answer to this question is that the Operational communities themselves should play a major role in the outreach to relevant non-ICANN communities

 

MI: I fully agree .. and that’s why I suggested  to add “Inclusiveness/Outreach – check the level of inclusiveness and outreach of the provided process” to the criteria of individual proposals assessment, to make sure the Operational communities considers this seriously and play an active/proactive role in outreach ..


_______________________________________________
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/20140930/c9a7b236/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list