I added new files to the dropbox, a suggested edit of the charter and a summary/analysis/recommendation regarding the comments that we have received. As you remember, we called for major objections, so I have been rather critical in what suggestions I recommended as being adopted. Please comment; we are discussing this soon on our call. Also, if you are aware of comments that I have missed (perhaps in your community), let me know. I’ll include the PDF versions below. Jari
This is a new version based on comments that I received during the call. The changes from the version that I posted before the call are: - add the word “independent” in front of the accountability requirement per James’ request - change “Internet community” to “global multi-stakeholder community” per Russ’ off-line request that supported Richard Hill’s original comment - add the requirement for the ICG to compile and assess also the input received beyond the operational communities Change bars are included. As discussed on the call, this is the version that we plan to go ahead with. If you have an issue with this version, please notify the ICG of this within the next week, i.e., before end of business on Tuesday, August 26th. Jari Arkko
This seems fine, just want to make sure that "assess" does not imply the need to respond to each point on why its taken on board or not. Would "review" achieve the same end with less potential to misread? On 8/19/2014 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
This is a new version based on comments that I received during the call. The changes from the version that I posted before the call are:
- add the word "independent" in front of the accountability requirement per James' request - change "Internet community" to "global multi-stakeholder community" per Russ' off-line request that supported Richard Hill's original comment - add the requirement for the ICG to compile and assess also the input received beyond the operational communities
Change bars are included.
As discussed on the call, this is the version that we plan to go ahead with. If you have an issue with this version, please notify the ICG of this within the next week, i.e., before end of business on Tuesday, August 26th.
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree with Joe that “review” is better than “assess.” Otherwise I think the charter is ready to go. Thanks, Alissa On 8/19/14, 7:05 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
This seems fine, just want to make sure that "assess" does not imply the need to respond to each point on why its taken on board or not. Would "review" achieve the same end with less potential to misread?
On 8/19/2014 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
This is a new version based on comments that I received during the call. The changes from the version that I posted before the call are:
- add the word “independent” in front of the accountability requirement per James’ request - change “Internet community” to “global multi-stakeholder community” per Russ’ off-line request that supported Richard Hill’s original comment - add the requirement for the ICG to compile and assess also the input received beyond the operational communities
Change bars are included.
As discussed on the call, this is the version that we plan to go ahead with. If you have an issue with this version, please notify the ICG of this within the next week, i.e., before end of business on Tuesday, August 26th.
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
+1 On 22 Aug 2014, at 10:15 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I agree with Joe that “review” is better than “assess.” Otherwise I think the charter is ready to go.
Thanks, Alissa
On 8/19/14, 7:05 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
This seems fine, just want to make sure that "assess" does not imply the need to respond to each point on why its taken on board or not. Would "review" achieve the same end with less potential to misread?
On 8/19/2014 9:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
This is a new version based on comments that I received during the call. The changes from the version that I posted before the call are:
- add the word “independent” in front of the accountability requirement per James’ request - change “Internet community” to “global multi-stakeholder community” per Russ’ off-line request that supported Richard Hill’s original comment - add the requirement for the ICG to compile and assess also the input received beyond the operational communities
Change bars are included.
As discussed on the call, this is the version that we plan to go ahead with. If you have an issue with this version, please notify the ICG of this within the next week, i.e., before end of business on Tuesday, August 26th.
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://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
The review period for the charter has completed, and based on the August 19 call and subsequent e-mail discussion, my interpretation is that we now have a stable charter that can be published. I have made one change as requested by Joe and others, changing “assess” to “review" in the new text. Here are the attached files, the first two are the clean Word and PDF files, and the next two are the ones with changes from the version that we put out for public review after our London meeting. I would like to suggest that the secretariat puts this up on the ICG website and publishes and appropriate news item. Please use the charterv10_clean.pdf file for this. Thank you all for your hard work on this topic. Jari Arkko
Great news, thanks Jari. On 27 Aug 2014, at 8:22 pm, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
The review period for the charter has completed, and based on the August 19 call and subsequent e-mail discussion, my interpretation is that we now have a stable charter that can be published.
I have made one change as requested by Joe and others, changing “assess” to “review" in the new text. Here are the attached files, the first two are the clean Word and PDF files, and the next two are the ones with changes from the version that we put out for public review after our London meeting.
I would like to suggest that the secretariat puts this up on the ICG website and publishes and appropriate news item. Please use the charterv10_clean.pdf file for this.
Thank you all for your hard work on this topic.
Jari Arkko
<charterv10_clean.docx><charterv10_clean.pdf>
<charterv10.docx><charterv10.pdf> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear ICG Members, The charter was published on the ICANN website yesterday and may be found at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf Note that it was also posted on your activities page at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icg-activities-2014-07-18-en The link to the announcement is: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-27-en Thanks, Best regards Alice On 8/27/14 12:22 PM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
The review period for the charter has completed, and based on the August 19 call and subsequent e-mail discussion, my interpretation is that we now have a stable charter that can be published.
I have made one change as requested by Joe and others, changing ³assess² to ³review" in the new text. Here are the attached files, the first two are the clean Word and PDF files, and the next two are the ones with changes from the version that we put out for public review after our London meeting.
I would like to suggest that the secretariat puts this up on the ICG website and publishes and appropriate news item. Please use the charterv10_clean.pdf file for this.
Thank you all for your hard work on this topic.
Jari Arkko
participants (5)
-
Alice Jansen -
Alissa Cooper -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Paul Wilson