Minor issue with timeline language
Hi all, The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7: "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA." I suggest that we should update this to say: "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.” Let me know what you think. Thanks, Alissa
I am in agreement with this adjustment also. Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2014 9:22 AM To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Good choice of words! ICANN "delivers" our final proposal. They are the postman not the proposer ;-) --MM
-----Original Message-----
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA."
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes, full support of that wording! Patrik On 8 okt 2014, at 15:21, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Good choice of words! ICANN "delivers" our final proposal. They are the postman not the proposer ;-) --MM
-----Original Message-----
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA."
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree: nicely finessed! Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 08 October 2014 23:22 To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Good choice of words! ICANN "delivers" our final proposal. They are the postman not the proposer ;-) --MM
-----Original Message-----
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA."
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Alissa, Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc.) to someone so that it can be considered or approved". To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say: "If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.” or "If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN". Best, Lynn On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Here is an update to the timeline document that includes these changes. Russ On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Hi Alissa,
Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc.) to someone so that it can be considered or approved".
To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
or
"If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN".
Best, Lynn
On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa
Thanks Russ, agree with the updated text. Kind Regards, Mohamed
On 9 Oct 2014, at 20:45, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Here is an update to the timeline document that includes these changes.
Russ
<TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx>
On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Hi Alissa,
Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc.) to someone so that it can be considered or approved".
To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
or
"If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN".
Best, Lynn
On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Alissa, I'm afraid this is not a small, "minor" issue. What is at stake is - the independence of the Coordination Group with regard to existing entities, e.g. ICANN, - the perception that the NTIA or some other federal authority has had second thoughts and, as a result, is moving the goal posts, - the questionable manner of communicating this shifting of goal posts by an oral communication to a member of the ICG. This new suggestion or demand is not acceptable. I request that the ICG Chair draw the attention of the US authorities - to the fact that this would amount to a change in the rules governing the Transition exercise once the game has started, - to the risk of sending a negative message about the impartiality of the ICG in setting up and proposing a Transition plan, - to the danger of raising concerns, in some quarters, about the determination of the USG about transitioning, - to the need to respect a parallel form (the NTIA statement of April 2014 was a formal, very public announcement and undertaking, whereas the change suggested this time is meant to appear as a "minor" issue). Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir@mbash.net> À: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Octobre 2014 21:42:56 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Thanks Russ, agree with the updated text. Kind Regards, Mohamed On 9 Oct 2014, at 20:45, Russ Housley < housley@vigilsec.com > wrote: Here is an update to the timeline document that includes these changes. Russ <TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx> On Oct 9, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: Hi Alissa, Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc..) to someone so that it can be considered or approved". To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say: "If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.” or "If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN". Best, Lynn On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in > wrote: Hi all, The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7: "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA." I suggest that we should update this to say: "If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.” Let me know what you think. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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
Lynn's first revised wording is better, and I prefer a clearer statement that this is a piece compiled by the ICG through the community, independent of ICANN, and delivered, unchanged to the NTIA. Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, 10 October 2014 1:04 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Hi Alissa,
Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc.) to someone so that it can be considered or approved".
To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA."
or
"If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN".
Best, Lynn
On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA."
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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
Alissa, I’m more with Lynn’s first wording. - a. On Oct 9, 2014, at 18:03 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org> wrote:
Hi Alissa,
Various definitions of "submit" say: "given to a person or body for consideration or judgment" or "to give (a document, proposal, piece of writing, etc.) to someone so that it can be considered or approved".
To make the ICG's intent and responsibility more clear we might say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG SENDS the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
or
"If no concerns are found, the ICG's proposal is transmitted to NTIA via ICANN".
Best, Lynn
On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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
I am afraid that at this stage and in this environment this is not a minor issue. The communities/stakeholders have accepted ICANN as the convener of the ICG. I expect only reaistance from the perception of a change that appeas to give ICANN a new and unforseen material role after that. Note well that at this stage it does not matter whether this was in fact unforeseen. Maybe a way out of this is for us to both independently publish the proposal and 'transnit' it to both ICANN and NTIA simultaneously by adding a nice cover letter from our chairs. That way NTIA can take notice as soon as we are ready and anything ICANN may or may not do appears to have less material conseuence. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 08.10.2014, at 23:39, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Language: ... ICG publishes the final proposal and transmits it to NTIA and ICANN. --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 10.10.2014, at 09:25, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I am afraid that at this stage and in this environment this is not a minor issue. The communities/stakeholders have accepted ICANN as the convener of the ICG. I expect only reaistance from the perception of a change that appeas to give ICANN a new and unforseen material role after that. Note well that at this stage it does not matter whether this was in fact unforeseen.
Maybe a way out of this is for us to both independently publish the proposal and 'transnit' it to both ICANN and NTIA simultaneously by adding a nice cover letter from our chairs. That way NTIA can take notice as soon as we are ready and anything ICANN may or may not do appears to have less material conseuence.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 08.10.2014, at 23:39, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Daniel's suggestion is interesting: transmit the ICG proposal to both NTIA and ICANN. But in addition, we need to state clearly that if transmitted THROUGH the ICANN, our plan would not be submitted to any appraisal, correction or amendment by that corporation, nor by any other entity. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 10 Octobre 2014 09:25:48 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language I am afraid that at this stage and in this environment this is not a minor issue. The communities/stakeholders have accepted ICANN as the convener of the ICG. I expect only reaistance from the perception of a change that appeas to give ICANN a new and unforseen material role after that. Note well that at this stage it does not matter whether this was in fact unforeseen. Maybe a way out of this is for us to both independently publish the proposal and 'transnit' it to both ICANN and NTIA simultaneously by adding a nice cover letter from our chairs. That way NTIA can take notice as soon as we are ready and anything ICANN may or may not do appears to have less material conseuence. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 08.10.2014, at 23:39, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi all,
The folks at NTIA have pointed out to me that as a practical matter and to remain consistent with their procurement rules, ICANN is the entity that needs to submit the final transition proposal to NTIA. If you look at our published timeline, it says the following in step 7:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to NTIA."
I suggest that we should update this to say:
"If no concerns are found, the ICG formally submits the final proposal to ICANN for delivery to NTIA.”
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ 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
Jean-Jacques, Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé. Amicalement Daniel --------- rough translation: I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished. Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal. Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions, Daniel ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed. On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-) ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss 2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree here. Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful: “Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss 2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>: publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-) ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
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
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained. Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission." Thanks, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language I agree here. Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful: “Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss 2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > : publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-) ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks, I agree. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1:38 AM To: WUKnoben Cc: internal-cg@icann.org ; Kavouss Arasteh ; Daniel Karrenberg Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained. Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission." Thanks, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language I agree here. Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful: “Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss 2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > : publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-) ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN. I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal. I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report. Russ On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained.
Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission."
Thanks, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
I agree here.
Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful:
“Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.”
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss
2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > :
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
This (Sunday) morning the ALAC received the visit of the CEO/President of ICANN. Fadi started his presentation by underlining the importance of the transition plan, before any other topic. During Q&A, and speaking as a representative of the ALAC, I mentioned that the IGC would be sending its transition plan formally through ICANN, and highlighted the fact that ICANN (Board and/or Staff) should abstain from any modification of the plan itself. I asked him to bring this to the attention of his colleagues on the ICANN Board: he said he would do that. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 12:36:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN. I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal. I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report. Russ On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained.
Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission."
Thanks, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
I agree here.
Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful:
“Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.”
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss
2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > :
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
IGC = ICG ??? ==================================== On 12/10/14 16:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
This (Sunday) morning the ALAC received the visit of the CEO/President of ICANN. Fadi started his presentation by underlining the importance of the transition plan, before any other topic. During Q&A, and speaking as a representative of the ALAC, I mentioned that the IGC would be sending its transition plan formally through ICANN, and highlighted the fact that ICANN (Board and/or Staff) should abstain from any modification of the plan itself. I asked him to bring this to the attention of his colleagues on the ICANN Board: he said he would do that.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com>, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 12:36:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN.
I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal.
I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report.
Russ
On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained.
Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission."
Thanks, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
I agree here.
Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful:
“Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.”
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss
2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > :
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hartmut, good catch! Yes, I should have written ICG instead of IGC. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@cgi.br> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 14:11:14 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language IGC = ICG ??? ==================================== On 12/10/14 16:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: This (Sunday) morning the ALAC received the visit of the CEO/President of ICANN. Fadi started his presentation by underlining the importance of the transition plan, before any other topic. During Q&A, and speaking as a representative of the ALAC, I mentioned that the IGC would be sending its transition plan formally through ICANN, and highlighted the fact that ICANN (Board and/or Staff) should abstain from any modification of the plan itself. I asked him to bring this to the attention of his colleagues on the ICANN Board: he said he would do that. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> , "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> , internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 12:36:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN. I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal. I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report. Russ On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote: As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained. Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission." Thanks, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> , "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language I agree here. Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful: “Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.” Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss 2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > : publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-) ---------- Sent from a hand held device. On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote: It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed. On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques, Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé. Amicalement Daniel --------- rough translation: I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished. Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal. Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions, Daniel ---------- Sent from a hand held device. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
In addition to the various statements that have been made about this issue this week, I've also reached out to a few ICANN board and staff folks about the possibility of us issuing a joint statement outlining the proposal transmission steps. So that is an option for us as well if we want to go down that path. Alissa
On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Hartmut, good catch! Yes, I should have written ICG instead of IGC. Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@cgi.br> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 14:11:14 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
IGC = ICG ???
====================================
On 12/10/14 16:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
This (Sunday) morning the ALAC received the visit of the CEO/President of ICANN. Fadi started his presentation by underlining the importance of the transition plan, before any other topic. During Q&A, and speaking as a representative of the ALAC, I mentioned that the IGC would be sending its transition plan formally through ICANN, and highlighted the fact that ICANN (Board and/or Staff) should abstain from any modification of the plan itself. I asked him to bring this to the attention of his colleagues on the ICANN Board: he said he would do that.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> , "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> , internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 12:36:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN.
I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal.
I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report.
Russ
On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained.
Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission."
Thanks, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> , "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
I agree here.
Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful:
“Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.”
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss
2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > :
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Yes, let's do that. I'd like to be part of the consultation with Board, alongside you. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@cgi.br>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Jeudi 16 Octobre 2014 08:01:46 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language In addition to the various statements that have been made about this issue this week, I've also reached out to a few ICANN board and staff folks about the possibility of us issuing a joint statement outlining the proposal transmission steps. So that is an option for us as well if we want to go down that path. Alissa
On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Hartmut, good catch! Yes, I should have written ICG instead of IGC. Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@cgi.br> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 14:11:14 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
IGC = ICG ???
====================================
On 12/10/14 16:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
This (Sunday) morning the ALAC received the visit of the CEO/President of ICANN. Fadi started his presentation by underlining the importance of the transition plan, before any other topic. During Q&A, and speaking as a representative of the ALAC, I mentioned that the IGC would be sending its transition plan formally through ICANN, and highlighted the fact that ICANN (Board and/or Staff) should abstain from any modification of the plan itself. I asked him to bring this to the attention of his colleagues on the ICANN Board: he said he would do that.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> , "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> , internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 12:36:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN.
I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal.
I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report.
Russ
On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained.
Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission."
Thanks, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> , "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
I agree here.
Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful:
“Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.”
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss
2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > :
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Alissa .. Very good idea .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:02 PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language In addition to the various statements that have been made about this issue this week, I've also reached out to a few ICANN board and staff folks about the possibility of us issuing a joint statement outlining the proposal transmission steps. So that is an option for us as well if we want to go down that path. Alissa
On Oct 12, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Hartmut, good catch! Yes, I should have written ICG instead of IGC. Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@cgi.br> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 14:11:14 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
IGC = ICG ???
====================================
On 12/10/14 16:46, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
This (Sunday) morning the ALAC received the visit of the CEO/President of ICANN. Fadi started his presentation by underlining the importance of the transition plan, before any other topic. During Q&A, and speaking as a representative of the ALAC, I mentioned that the IGC would be sending its transition plan formally through ICANN, and highlighted the fact that ICANN (Board and/or Staff) should abstain from any modification of the plan itself. I asked him to bring this to the attention of his colleagues on the ICANN Board: he said he would do that.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "Russ Mundy" <mundy@tislabs.com> , "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> , internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Octobre 2014 12:36:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
In the 14 March announcement, NTIA tasked ICANN with "to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA" and the IANA Functions contract is between NTIA & ICANN so it is entirely reasonable for NTIA to want the response to their announcement to come from ICANN. I support the solution suggested by Daniel for the ICG to simultaneously deliver the final proposal to both NTIA and ICANN.
I would also like to suggest that we consider some technical means of "signing" the final proposal using something like a gpg/pgp signature and publishing the public key on the ICG web site - in that way, anyone on the Internet can tell if any changes have been made to the ICG proposal.
I would not object to the exact wording suggested by JJ but I do think that the last sentence is unnecessary - I think that it would be much better to use a technical means to get assurance that ICANN would not make any changes to the report.
Russ
On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:38 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
As stated in a previous email, I suggest once again that we add that the content will not be modified by ICANN or any other entity. Also, the addition proposed by Daniel (ICG sending the plan to NTIA both directly and through ICANN) should be retained.
Thus, "Following on NTIA's request, and consistent with procurement rules within ICANN, the ICG shall submit its Transition Plan to the NTIA directly, as well as formally through ICANN. The content of the plan shall in no way be altered, redacted or modified by ICANN as the designated channel of transmission."
Thanks, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> , "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 11 Octobre 2014 09:18:59 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
I agree here.
Perhaps a reference in our submission/transmission whatsoever to NTIA’s request maybe helpful:
“Following the NTIA request in consistence with procurement rules as well as practical matter, the ICG submits - formally through ICANN - the transition proposal to NTIA.”
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 6:09 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minor issue with timeline language
Dear All, For me does not matter whether ICG transmit to NTIA,or ICANN transmit , without any edit ,whatsoever, to NTIA,.or ICG transmit to NTIA with a copy to ICANN,or ICG transmit to NTIA and ICANN simultaneously ( not coped to ICANN but transmittal to ICANN) The important issue is ICANN should not touch, edit, comment on the final Report Kavouss
2014-10-10 14:57 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net > :
publish & transmit to ntia & transmit to icann. these days one cannot any longer distinguish between orignial and copy. ;-)
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 10.10.2014, at 13:13, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
It would seem that if we publish the proposal just after transmission to ICANN and copy NTIA on that missive that we have insured that no one can misunderstand what we proposed.
On 10/10/2014 6:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Jean-Jacques,
Je suggère que nous allons faire notre travail, sans préjudice de ce que autres vont faire avec le résultat. Nous le faisons d'une manière transparente et à ce que tout le monde peut prendre acte du résultat. Une fois que nous avons fait notre travail nous avons terminé et il sera pour les autres à faire leur choix. Il serait vain pour nous de prévoir des règles sur la façon dont ce qui se passera lorsque nous aurons terminé.
Amicalement
Daniel
---------
rough translation:
I suggest we do our job without prejudice about what others will do with it. We do it in a transparent manner and such that everyone can take note of the result. Once we have done our job we are finished and it will be for others to make their choices. It would be futile and therfore unwise for us to stipulate rules on how what will happen after we are finished.
Read: ICANN will be judged by and suffer the consequences of what they do with the final proposal.
Read also: we will be judged by our (futile) debates and actions,
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (17)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Hartmut Richard Glaser -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Mohamed El Bashir -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Russ Housley -
Russ Mundy -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben