I agree with the improvements suggested by Kavouss and Milton. Jean-Jacques. Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> a écrit :
I agree with the intent of Jean-Jacques’ proposed modification and with Arasteh’s modification of it. The language however is a bit redundant at the end, and we need to work more directly from the clear, step by step language that Alissa has already put into the document. So how about this:
a. The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site.
b. The ICG will transmit the final proposal to the ICANN Board.
c. The ICANN Board will send the final proposal to NTIA without making any changes within 14 days of receiving the proposal from the ICG. Any accompanying letter will be posted publicly.
d. If the ICANN Board has an issue with the proposal, the ICG understands that the ICANN Board will have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:58 AM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
Dear Alisa I agree with Jean Jacques but suggesting to replace the word "expects "to "understands "due to the fact that our views is more than an expectation Regards Kavouss
2014-12-09 12:21 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net<mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>>: Alissa,
with reference to 4e, the ICG has no authority to say what the ICANN Board should or should not do. We can only express a wish or a firm expectation. Therefore, 4d and 4e should be collapsed into one, and reformulated as follows:
"The ICG expects the ICANN Board to send the final proposal to the NTIA within 14 days of receipt, without making any changes to the proposal. If the ICANN Board were to have an issue with the proposal, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would have already shared that with the ICG in a timely manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment. In the latter case, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would not modify the proposal, but would send it with a letter of transmission to be made public."
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> À: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark@accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au>> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Décembre 2014 10:51:33 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
Alissa, I saw a document with several track changes accompanied by you explanatory Note . Then I asked myself the followings\ What are these changes ? Who made them? why they were made? WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES? if I misunderstood the issue, pls correct me Regards Kavouss
2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark < narelle.clark@accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au> > :
I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to).
Why does it need to be referred to here?
I can see a point in inc