@Joe +1, I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of ICANN. That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation. Legally, we can't say more. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> À: jjs@dyalog.net, mueller@syr.edu Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 18 Octobre 2014 02:54:03 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board I'm not sure the nature of our charter is binding on the board in a legal sense. I would think we can find other words of equal strength that don't implicate a statement of legal fact. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mueller@syr.edu] Received: Friday, 17 Oct 2014, 5:25PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs@dyalog.net] CC: internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
-----Original Message----- - we must avoid discussing whether another body (ICANN Board, in this case) is "authorized" or not to undertake any action. I suggest "Consistent with its
I don't agree. ICANN's board is not authorized to alter the proposal. It's factually correct and the simplest way to say it. An FAQ should make things clear and simple, not obfuscate. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg