I agree it is preferable to use the exact language coming from NTIA: not less, but certainly not more. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Keith Drazek" <kdrazek@verisign.com> À: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Vendredi 17 Octobre 2014 15:41:31 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Q14 (ICANN board) proposed text Thanks Milton. Perhaps we should use the language used by Fiona Alexander, as follows, instead of “for legal reasons”…. Here’s what she said in her email to us: “Consistent with procurement rules, ICANN must be the party that formally submits the transition proposal to NTIA.” Also, a separate comment, we have one Board Liaison (Kuo-wei Wu) and one Staff Liaison (Elise Gerich), not two Board liaisons. Thanks, Keith From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:27 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Q14 (ICANN board) proposed text What is the role of the ICANN board in preparing the proposal? The ICG is independent of the ICANN board. The board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons, who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the board informed about our deliberations. The board is not authorized to modify or approve the ICG's proposal, but for legal reasons, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN board. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg