The wording as fine for me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :
cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Julie Hammer
Envoyé : lundi 11 août 2014 23:50
À : Duchesneau, Stephanie; Gomes, Chuck
Cc : CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version
of charter for review
Hi Stephanie,
I like your revised proposed wording and am also happy with
your other edits.
Cheers, Julie
On 12 Aug 2014, at 8:11 am, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:
I like it too.
Allan
Sent from my BlackBerry
10 smartphone on the TELUS network.
|
From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 5:56 PM To: Duchesneau, Stephanie; Allan
MacGillivray; Julie Hammer Subject: RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed
Agenda and latest version of charter for review |
I like that a lot better Stephanie. Let’s see what others
think. Thanks.
Chuck
From: Duchesneau,
Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us]
Sent: Monday, August 11,
2014 5:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Allan
MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi
Chuck,
Would
the following better address your concerns:
In
appointing their members, the chartering organizations should note that the
CWG’s decision-making methodologies require that CWG members act by consensus,
and that polling will only be used in rare instances and with the recognition
that such polls do not constitute votes.
Stephanie
Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public
Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received
this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
From: Gomes,
Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11,
2014 4:24 PM
To: Duchesneau, Stephanie;
'Allan MacGillivray'; Julie Hammer
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Thanks Stephanie. The minor edits looks okay to me.
With regard to the sentence you crafted below, I personally
prefer it if we directly include a description of what we want them to see
rather than making a reference to because I suspect that some people will not
take the time to go to the reference. If we do it as you suggest, I suggest
we specifically refer to the section in the charter that contains what we want
them to review. What do others think?
Chuck
From: Duchesneau,
Stephanie [mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau@neustar.us]
Sent: Monday, August 11,
2014 11:42 AM
To: 'Allan MacGillivray';
Julie Hammer; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
In
appointing members the CWG, the chartering organizations should note the CWG’s
decision-making methodologies with respect to consensus calls and polling.
Have
made a few other minor edits throughout reflected in the attached, which I
believe are non-substantive/reflective of previous group discussion.
Stephanie
Stephanie
Duchesneau
Neustar, Inc. / Public
Policy Manager
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2623 Mobile: +1.703.731.2040 Fax: +1.202.533.2623 / www.neustar.biz
The information contained in this email message is intended only
for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received
this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original
message.
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray
Sent: Monday, August 11,
2014 11:04 AM
To: Julie Hammer; Gomes,
Chuck
Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
I am also comfortable with this wording. Thanks Chuck.
From: Julie
Hammer [mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com]
Sent: August-11-14 11:03
AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Allan MacGillivray; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi Chuck,
I think this is better wording and am happy
with this. Many thanks.
Cheers, Julie
On 12 Aug 2014, at 12:53 am, Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@verisign.com>
wrote:
Thanks Allan. Now I know what the intent was. Would
the following work: “That proposal may
include alternativeoptions for specific features within it, provided that each
option carries comparable support from the CWG. ”
Chuck
From: Allan
MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 11,
2014 10:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie
Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: RE:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Chuck – I worked on this with Julie. The objective here
was to give the CWG the flexibility of providing more than one option, but not
the flexibility to provide dissenting opinions, that is options on which there
is no consensus e.g. ‘we are happy with any of these options because we have
achieved the same level of consensus on all of them’.
Allan
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: August-11-14 10:40
AM
To: Julie Hammer; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Importance: High
Thanks Julie. The second sentence isn’t clear to me.
If I had to explain what it means to others, I don’t think I could do
that. Can you possibly tweak it some? What do you mean by ‘specific features’? What kind of
features? Maybe some examples would help. Also, what does ‘the same level of consensus’
mean? Same level of consensus as what? Do you simply mean ‘each
option has consensus support of the group’?
Chuck
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer
Sent: Monday, August 11,
2014 10:09 AM
To: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re:
[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Hi Everyone,
I propose that the first sentence in the
section titled 'Goals and Objectives' be amended to read:
The primary goal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop
an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal (CWG) will be to produce a consolidated
transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the
Domain Name System. That proposal may include options for specific
features within it, provided that each option carries the same level of
consensus from the CWG.
Cheers, Julie
On 11 Aug 2014, at 6:44 pm, Jonathan
Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Thanks Marika and CWG Colleagues,
The agenda below is the one I expect we will now follow.
As proposed a little over a week ago and also below, I think the
realistic way to work through the charter in the time allocated for the call is
to seek objections to / concerns with the current wording.
To the extent that members are OK with the wording, we’ll take
that as read.
Many thanks to those who have contributed to getting this in
such good shape over a relatively short time,
Talk with you all at 13h00 UTC.
Jonathan
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: 08 August 2014 12:22
To: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship]
Proposed Agenda and latest version of charter for review
Dear
All,
Please
find below the proposed agenda for Monday's DT meeting, subject to revisions by
the co-chairs and input from the DT. Having discussed this with Jonathan, we
would like to encourage you to identify any other items beyond those listed in
agenda item 2 that in your view need to be further discussed by the DT – we
will operate under the assumption that apart from those items already
identified and additional items that may get flagged prior to the meeting, the
current language / proposed edits as in the latest version of the charter as
attached are acceptable by all and do not need further discussion.
Please
note that in the attached version (based on the version that Julie sent earlier
today), I've added some proposed wording to the 'additional resources required'
section to highlight that this is something the CWG should preferably focus on
at an early stage as it is unlikely that the DT at this point in time will be
in a position to identify what additional resources the CWG may need.
If
you have any comments and/or questions, please share those with the list.
Best
regards,
Marika
Proposed Agenda – DT Meeting – Monday 11 August at
13.00 UTC
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
|
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. |