GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group
Dear CG members, thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort. As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?). Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below. Fire away, I am sure it can be improved. Best, Lynn -------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair Heather, the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation. As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number. These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable. To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments. We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal. The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition. In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end. Best regards,
Dear CG members, I will raise a “process” question for the decision (regarding to have 5 GAC members) we made yesterday. I wish we have time to revisit the decisions we made yesterday before we continue the new topics today. Kuo Wu Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org> 於 2014/7/18 7:06 寫道：
Dear CG members,
thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
Best,
Lynn
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Heather,
the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation.
As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number. These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments. We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal.
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Lynn. This looks good to me. Keith On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:07 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
Dear CG members,
thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
Best,
Lynn
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Heather,
the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation.
As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number. These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments. We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal.
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Lynn, Thanks for putting this together. Some comments below. On 7/18/14, 12:06 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
Dear CG members,
thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
Best,
Lynn
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Heather,
the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation.
As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number.
Suggested edits to #4: “4) agreement that we would operate by rough consensus judged more by the merit of objections than the number of them."
These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
Suggested edits to the above two sentences, to make it clear what we decided (and also — are we sure the original allotment was not discussed with the GAC? don’t think we need to comment on this in any event): The CG considered whether the GAC should be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG rather than the two (2) seats it was originally allotted. The CG noted that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the CG as the CG was not yet established when the allotments were made. The CG concluded that five GAC appointees would be welcome in the CG granted that those appointees are committed to the expectations outlined above. The CG recognizes the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal.
I’m not sure what is meant by “liaising” above (nor who is doing the liaising) — might just be that a word edit is needed. Thanks, Alissa
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Good morning Lynn, thanks for the draft. As per my remarks a few minutes ago, and those put forward by Jo, and Milton + Jari, the important elements would be: - following on the GAC's request (not letter), the CG has accepted that it have a representation of 5; - this takes into account the reality of GAC's rules of representation, 5 ICANN regions, working methods; - our expectation that, in addition to its active work on the CG, GAC will equally engage in other places about Transition. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org>, "Internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Juillet 2014 08:37:52 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group Hi Lynn, Thanks for putting this together. Some comments below. On 7/18/14, 12:06 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
Dear CG members,
thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
Best,
Lynn
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Heather,
the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation.
As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number.
Suggested edits to #4: “4) agreement that we would operate by rough consensus judged more by the merit of objections than the number of them."
These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
Suggested edits to the above two sentences, to make it clear what we decided (and also — are we sure the original allotment was not discussed with the GAC? don’t think we need to comment on this in any event): The CG considered whether the GAC should be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG rather than the two (2) seats it was originally allotted. The CG noted that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the CG as the CG was not yet established when the allotments were made. The CG concluded that five GAC appointees would be welcome in the CG granted that those appointees are committed to the expectations outlined above. The CG recognizes the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal.
I’m not sure what is meant by “liaising” above (nor who is doing the liaising) — might just be that a word edit is needed. Thanks, Alissa
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ 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
Mindful of the fact that the GAC folk (and welcome!) are now on the list, here is the text I propose. -------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair Dear Ms Dryden, the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for conveying, on behalf of the GAC, the request for an increase in membership of the CG and the rationale for same. As you likely observed the CG has reached substantive agreement on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for the work, 3) clear expectations that the work be undertaken in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather than the quantity. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable. In the light of these principles, and noting that the original allotment of representation was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time, the CG has agreed to recognise the GAC request that it be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments. We also believe that this will allow for effective liaison beyond the normal GAC processes, and will ultimately only enhance global acceptance of any transition proposal. The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition. In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and trust you will agree we have a solution that will benefit the broader aims of this process. Best regards, ________________________________________ From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014 6:27 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group Good morning Lynn, thanks for the draft. As per my remarks a few minutes ago, and those put forward by Jo, and Milton + Jari, the important elements would be: - following on the GAC's request (not letter), the CG has accepted that it have a representation of 5; - this takes into account the reality of GAC's rules of representation, 5 ICANN regions, working methods; - our expectation that, in addition to its active work on the CG, GAC will equally engage in other places about Transition. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org>, "Internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Juillet 2014 08:37:52 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group Hi Lynn, Thanks for putting this together. Some comments below. On 7/18/14, 12:06 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
Dear CG members,
thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
Best,
Lynn
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Heather,
the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation.
As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number.
Suggested edits to #4: “4) agreement that we would operate by rough consensus judged more by the merit of objections than the number of them."
These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
Suggested edits to the above two sentences, to make it clear what we decided (and also — are we sure the original allotment was not discussed with the GAC? don’t think we need to comment on this in any event): The CG considered whether the GAC should be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG rather than the two (2) seats it was originally allotted. The CG noted that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the CG as the CG was not yet established when the allotments were made. The CG concluded that five GAC appointees would be welcome in the CG granted that those appointees are committed to the expectations outlined above. The CG recognizes the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal.
I’m not sure what is meant by “liaising” above (nor who is doing the liaising) — might just be that a word edit is needed. Thanks, Alissa
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ 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
Thank you for the suggestions Narelle. The CG tasked a small group to finalize the communique and we are happy to welcome you to that group. The group consists of Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Adiel Akplogan, myself and now you. A new draft is underway and will be sent to the sub-grouo shortly. Best. Lynn On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:05 AM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark@accan.org.au> wrote:
Mindful of the fact that the GAC folk (and welcome!) are now on the list, here is the text I propose.
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Dear Ms Dryden, the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for conveying, on behalf of the GAC, the request for an increase in membership of the CG and the rationale for same. As you likely observed the CG has reached substantive agreement on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for the work, 3) clear expectations that the work be undertaken in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather than the quantity. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
In the light of these principles, and noting that the original allotment of representation was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time, the CG has agreed to recognise the GAC request that it be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments. We also believe that this will allow for effective liaison beyond the normal GAC processes, and will ultimately only enhance global acceptance of any transition proposal.
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and trust you will agree we have a solution that will benefit the broader aims of this process.
Best regards,
________________________________________ From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014 6:27 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group
Good morning Lynn,
thanks for the draft. As per my remarks a few minutes ago, and those put forward by Jo, and Milton + Jari, the important elements would be: - following on the GAC's request (not letter), the CG has accepted that it have a representation of 5; - this takes into account the reality of GAC's rules of representation, 5 ICANN regions, working methods; - our expectation that, in addition to its active work on the CG, GAC will equally engage in other places about Transition.
Thanks. Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> À: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org>, "Internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Juillet 2014 08:37:52 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] GAC Participation on the IANA Transition Coordination Group
Hi Lynn,
Thanks for putting this together. Some comments below.
On 7/18/14, 12:06 AM, "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
Dear CG members,
thank you for all the goodwill shown in our discussion earlier today. There was a clear focus on moving ahead, and it was a real team effort.
As discussed, I offer the following text for your review. Once we agree the text, I believe the next step is to send this to the GAC Chair - Heather Dryden, either from the CG Chair if one has been appointed at that point, if not perhaps from ICANN staff (Theresa?).
Note also: I assumed successful conclusion in Day 2 on several items where we seem to be well advanced; obviously if we are not able to close on these in Day 2, we may need to alter the text below.
Fire away, I am sure it can be improved.
Best,
Lynn
-------- To be sent to: Heather Dryden - GAC Chair
Heather,
the IANA Transition Coordination Group (CG) would like to thank you for your participation in our inaugural meeting, especially as it came in the middle of your vacation.
As you likely observed, significant progress was made on several fronts. In particular, the CG has high alignment [reached agreement] on: 1) a group charter, 2) a scoping statement for our work, 3) clear expectations that the work be done in the respective communities, with participation from all stakeholders, leaving the CG the relatively narrow role of coordination, and 4) a nascent agreement that we would operate by "consensus" judged more by the merit of the objections rather then the number.
Suggested edits to #4:
“4) agreement that we would operate by rough consensus judged more by the merit of objections than the number of them."
These are important to note as these are expectations for all members of the CG, and it is critically important that we all commit to them. We have quite an ambitious goal and an aggressive timetable.
To the question at hand, following on from the GAC request that the GAC be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG, and noting that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the GAC, nor of course the CG as it had not been established at that time. The CG recognized the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
Suggested edits to the above two sentences, to make it clear what we decided (and also — are we sure the original allotment was not discussed with the GAC? don’t think we need to comment on this in any event):
The CG considered whether the GAC should be allowed to appoint five (5) individuals to the CG rather than the two (2) seats it was originally allotted. The CG noted that the original allotment was not established through consultation with the CG as the CG was not yet established when the allotments were made. The CG concluded that five GAC appointees would be welcome in the CG granted that those appointees are committed to the expectations outlined above. The CG recognizes the benefit to all of gaining an early and broad perspective from governments.
We also believe that this will allow for liasing beyond the normal GAC processes, and this will ultimately be key to global acceptance of the transition proposal.
I’m not sure what is meant by “liaising” above (nor who is doing the liaising) — might just be that a word edit is needed.
Thanks, Alissa
The CG also asked for assurance that there would be participation from the GAC in other IANA Transition community efforts. In other words, increased participation in the CG should not supplant participation in other community efforts related to the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In closing, we would like to thank the GAC for working with us through this process, and believe we have a solution that will benefit us all in the end.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________ 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 (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Drazek, Keith -
Lynn St.Amour -
Narelle Clark -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
Wu Kuo-Wei