Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Nigel Roberts
Gesendet: Sa 04.03.2017 07:15
An:
accountability-cross-community@icann.orgBetreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
Whilst I agree that these distinctions are needed, I would suggest that
in British English the word 'organisation' would be more likely to be
interpreteted as "the whole".
It's a goto word for reporters when something is not entirely clear.
If we mean staff, let's say 'Staff'.
On 03/03/17 21:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest:
ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the
Board.
ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but
NOT the Board
Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity.
EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the
individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time.
Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its
participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a
particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that
the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community,
individually and as IETF.
I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between
ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding
my grasp....
Greg
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org
<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of
staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am
not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2
documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly
even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the
ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw
in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org
<mailto:avri@acm.org>
<mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
...
We are sending this for discussion by the full group
Avri -
To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the
IETF and its
participants be characterized per these definitions?
Thanks!
/John
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
*Greg Shatan
*C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community