These corrections are good, but confusion about the RFP and its status is a Bad Thing. I would suggest that the same ICANN staff who sent the announcement should send a retraction to the same lists to which it was sent, saying very simply and clearly that the transmission was premature, the RFP is still a draft, and the ICG will formally issue the final RFP on September 8
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 3:34 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Posting of draft RFP
I have made a similar statement on the IANA transition panel at IGF, in my own capacity, as my understanding of the draft with the intention of providing communities working on proposals the substantive elements of the RFP as soon as possible. On 9/5/2014 3:21 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 5.09.14 9:01 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
On my own initiative I have just sent the following to ianatransition@icann.org where I saw the announcement:
"Be aware that this text has not been formally agreed by the ICG yet. It is a very very stable draft, but changes may still occur before it is agreed.
Daniel"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg