Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
I'm not sure the nature of our charter is binding on the board in a legal sense. I would think we can find other words of equal strength that don't implicate a statement of legal fact. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mueller@syr.edu] Received: Friday, 17 Oct 2014, 5:25PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs@dyalog.net] CC: internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
-----Original Message----- - we must avoid discussing whether another body (ICANN Board, in this case) is "authorized" or not to undertake any action. I suggest "Consistent with its
I don't agree. ICANN's board is not authorized to alter the proposal. It's factually correct and the simplest way to say it. An FAQ should make things clear and simple, not obfuscate. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
@Joe +1, I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of ICANN. That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation. Legally, we can't say more. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Joseph Alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> À: jjs@dyalog.net, mueller@syr.edu Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Samedi 18 Octobre 2014 02:54:03 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board I'm not sure the nature of our charter is binding on the board in a legal sense. I would think we can find other words of equal strength that don't implicate a statement of legal fact. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mueller@syr.edu] Received: Friday, 17 Oct 2014, 5:25PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs@dyalog.net] CC: internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
-----Original Message----- - we must avoid discussing whether another body (ICANN Board, in this case) is "authorized" or not to undertake any action. I suggest "Consistent with its
I don't agree. ICANN's board is not authorized to alter the proposal. It's factually correct and the simplest way to say it. An FAQ should make things clear and simple, not obfuscate. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-----Original Message----- @Joe +1, I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of ICANN. That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation. Legally, we can't say more.
What? Legally, we can say anything we like. There are no legal restrictions on speech applicable here. The assertion that the board is not authorized to change our recommendations is NOT the same thing as asserting that our charter legally constrains the board of ICANN. That of course would be ridiculous. We are simply stating that neither the community nor the NTIA nor anything else has authorized ICANN to amend our proposal.
Milton it is not a question of a legal prohibition to saying that we don't believe that ICANN should have any right to edit our syubmission in any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the nature of a statement of legal fact. I am questioning its accuracy as phrased not the answer to the question on which we are in complete agreement. On 10/21/2014 12:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message----- @Joe +1, I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of ICANN. That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation. Legally, we can't say more.
What? Legally, we can say anything we like. There are no legal restrictions on speech applicable here. The assertion that the board is not authorized to change our recommendations is NOT the same thing as asserting that our charter legally constrains the board of ICANN. That of course would be ridiculous.
We are simply stating that neither the community nor the NTIA nor anything else has authorized ICANN to amend our proposal.
@Joe +1. In addition, in this context the use of the word "authorized" is blunt. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> Cc: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mardi 21 Octobre 2014 18:09:02 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board Milton it is not a question of a legal prohibition to saying that we don't believe that ICANN should have any right to edit our syubmission in any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the nature of a statement of legal fact. I am questioning its accuracy as phrased not the answer to the question on which we are in complete agreement. On 10/21/2014 12:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message----- @Joe +1, I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of ICANN. That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation. Legally, we can't say more.
What? Legally, we can say anything we like. There are no legal restrictions on speech applicable here. The assertion that the board is not authorized to change our recommendations is NOT the same thing as asserting that our charter legally constrains the board of ICANN. That of course would be ridiculous.
We are simply stating that neither the community nor the NTIA nor anything else has authorized ICANN to amend our proposal.
-----Original Message----- any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the nature of a statement of legal fact.
Is it? I don't think so. You read it that way, but I and many others don't. The word "law" or "legal" does not appear in there, and if you look up the ordinary dictionary definition of "authorized" it says "having official permission or approval." If you like we can replace the word "authorized" with "does not have community approval"
That works. On 10/21/2014 2:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message----- any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the nature of a statement of legal fact. Is it? I don't think so. You read it that way, but I and many others don't. The word "law" or "legal" does not appear in there, and if you look up the ordinary dictionary definition of "authorized" it says
"having official permission or approval."
If you like we can replace the word "authorized" with "does not have community approval"
"does not have community approval" suits me. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mardi 21 Octobre 2014 20:31:04 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
-----Original Message----- any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the nature of a statement of legal fact.
Is it? I don't think so. You read it that way, but I and many others don't. The word "law" or "legal" does not appear in there, and if you look up the ordinary dictionary definition of "authorized" it says "having official permission or approval." If you like we can replace the word "authorized" with "does not have community approval"
+1 demi On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mardi 21 Octobre 2014 20:31:04 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
-----Original Message----- any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the nature of a statement of legal fact. Is it? I don't think so. You read it that way, but I and many others don't. The word "law" or "legal" does not appear in there, and if you look up the ordinary dictionary definition of "authorized" it says
"having official permission or approval."
If you like we can replace the word "authorized" with "does not have community approval"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
-----Original Message-----
+1 demi From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
That works.
On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
So here is where we stand on this now .. [Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal.] or [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not modify the Plan itself.] or [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.] Any preferences for other colleagues .. Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation does this mean I should delete the second alternative? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
-----Original Message-----
+1 demi From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
That works.
On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Manal. I still prefer my wording, which refers to a document, and that's an advantage. If my proposal was not accepted, I could agree with Milton's suggestion (as already indicated in a previous email). James' formulation, which merely expresses an expectation, is weaker than both Milton's and mine. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Demi Getschko" <epusp75@gmail.com>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Octobre 2014 11:45:55 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board So here is where we stand on this now .. [Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal.] or [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not modify the Plan itself.] or [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.] Any preferences for other colleagues .. Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation does this mean I should delete the second alternative? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
-----Original Message-----
+1 demi From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
That works.
On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
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 Jean-Jacques .. Fair enough .. Then we still have 3 alternative drafts on the table .. Any weighing preferences from other colleagues? Kind Regards --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:59 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Thanks Manal. I still prefer my wording, which refers to a document, and that's an advantage. If my proposal was not accepted, I could agree with Milton's suggestion (as already indicated in a previous email). James' formulation, which merely expresses an expectation, is weaker than both Milton's and mine.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Demi Getschko" <epusp75@gmail.com>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Octobre 2014 11:45:55 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
So here is where we stand on this now ..
[Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal.] or [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not modify the Plan itself.] or [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.]
Any preferences for other colleagues .. Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation does this mean I should delete the second alternative?
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
-----Original Message-----
+1 demi From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
That works.
On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
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 Manal, Jean-Jacques, colleagues, As you remember Alissa asked 3 of us (Lynn, Xiadong and myself) to draft a possible compromise text to Q#15 on the role of the ICANN Board in submitting the transition proposal to the NTIA. Here it is a possible draft that tries to merge in a single text multiple suggestions on the issue. The ICG is independent of the ICANN board. The board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (Mrs Elise Gerich, IANA Staff Expert; and Mr Kuo-Wei Wu, ICANN Board Liaison), who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the board and ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN board can submit public comments to the ICG about the final proposal. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal. When the ICG submits its final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well. Hope it can be useful. Best regards, Jandyr -----Mensagem original----- De: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Manal Ismail Enviada em: quarta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2014 08:29 Para: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board Thanks Jean-Jacques .. Fair enough .. Then we still have 3 alternative drafts on the table .. Any weighing preferences from other colleagues? Kind Regards --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:59 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Thanks Manal. I still prefer my wording, which refers to a document, and that's an advantage. If my proposal was not accepted, I could agree with Milton's suggestion (as already indicated in a previous email). James' formulation, which merely expresses an expectation, is weaker than both Milton's and mine.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Demi Getschko" <epusp75@gmail.com>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Octobre 2014 11:45:55 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
So here is where we stand on this now ..
[Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal.] or [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not modify the Plan itself.] or [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.]
Any preferences for other colleagues .. Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation does this mean I should delete the second alternative?
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
-----Original Message-----
+1 demi From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
That works.
On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
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
Dear Jandyr .. Many thanks to you, Lynn and Xiadong .. I was under the impression that you were preparing text for Q#16 .. Anyway, I have edited the answer to Q#15 to reflect the minor modifications suggested by the drafting group as well as the slight modification suggested by Joseph Alhadeff, and have moved James Bladel text as an answer to Q#16 .. I'll attach the file and answers of both questions to a separate message for the convenience of everyone .. Thanks again for the helpful text that enjoyed colleagues support .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: I don't have a strong position here but I was not in favour of adding names, of Board liaison and IANA expert to the answer of Q#15 -----Original Message----- From: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior [mailto:jandyr.santos@itamaraty.gov.br] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:35 PM To: Manal Ismail; Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RES: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board Dear Manal, Jean-Jacques, colleagues, As you remember Alissa asked 3 of us (Lynn, Xiadong and myself) to draft a possible compromise text to Q#15 on the role of the ICANN Board in submitting the transition proposal to the NTIA. Here it is a possible draft that tries to merge in a single text multiple suggestions on the issue. The ICG is independent of the ICANN board. The board is represented on the ICG by two liaisons (Mrs Elise Gerich, IANA Staff Expert; and Mr Kuo-Wei Wu, ICANN Board Liaison), who are there to provide information about the IANA functions and to keep the board and ICG informed about the implications of the transition. Like any other member of the community, the ICANN board can submit public comments to the ICG about the final proposal. Consistent with U.S. federal government procurement rules, the NTIA needs to have the final proposal submitted to it by the ICANN board, but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal. When the ICG submits its final proposal to ICANN, it will also be released to the general public and to NTIA as well. Hope it can be useful. Best regards, Jandyr -----Mensagem original----- De: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Manal Ismail Enviada em: quarta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2014 08:29 Para: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board Thanks Jean-Jacques .. Fair enough .. Then we still have 3 alternative drafts on the table .. Any weighing preferences from other colleagues? Kind Regards --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Oct 22, 2014, at 11:59 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
Thanks Manal. I still prefer my wording, which refers to a document, and that's an advantage. If my proposal was not accepted, I could agree with Milton's suggestion (as already indicated in a previous email). James' formulation, which merely expresses an expectation, is weaker than both Milton's and mine.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "Demi Getschko" <epusp75@gmail.com>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 22 Octobre 2014 11:45:55 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
So here is where we stand on this now ..
[Milton Mueller: but the Board does not have community approval to modify or approve the ICG's proposal.] or [Jean-Jacques: Consistent with its charter, the ICG considers that in transmitting the Transition Plan to NTIA, the ICANN Board shall not modify the Plan itself.] or [James Bladel: The ICG expects that its proposal, having achieved consensus on the Coordination Group and within the Operational Communities, will be welcomed by the ICANN Board and dutifully transmitted to NTIA.]
Any preferences for other colleagues .. Jean-Jacques, mentioning you are ok with Milton's latest formulation does this mean I should delete the second alternative?
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:50 PM To: 'Demi Getschko'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
Looks like that formulation is being "authorized" er, APPROVED heh
-----Original Message-----
+1 demi From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com]
That works.
On 10/21/2014 05:16 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
"does not have community approval" suits me.
Jean-Jacques.
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)
-
Demi Getschko -
Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Manal Ismail -
Milton L Mueller -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques