
Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal

Dear Manal, Thanks again for your hard work I think ,in order to enable the community to duly react, we need to release this FAQ as soon as possible By the way, for the issue of ICANN accountability and the activities' of CCWG, I did send a message to the GAC chair and GAC Members and asked every body to duly react on this very important matter. I am copy the message to all ICG in order to receive comments from them as soon as possible to enable me to pursue the matter. Here is the message Some principles to be observed in addressing the Accountability issues either on a global aspect relating to ICANN accountability or, a limited sphere ,relating to the transition of IANA stewardship Discussion What is the accountability?’ The state of being accountable <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accountable>, liable, or answerable What does it meant to be accountable? To be subject to the obligation* to report*, explain, or justify something; *responsible; answerable. * Accountability implies that a person or an executive entity to be accountable to someone else or to an entity of real /actual or of legal nature? In a democratic governing system, the executive power, the government in an individual or in a collective/collegial manner is* accountable* to the public in an indirect manner. Such accountability is ensured to be properly functioned so that the executive entity ( government, individually and collectively is accountable to the legislative entity which is representative of the public due to the fact that they have been democratically elected by the public . Now coming to the accountability oif ICANN . To whom or to which entity ICANN is and should be accountable The answer was given by ICANN management was that ICANN would be accountable to Global Multistakehoder Community. Now the question arises is who represent that Global Multistakehoder Community.? Is there any formal representation of the Global Multistakehoder Community.to which the ICANN would be accountable? If yes Who these representatives are? Who elect them? How they are elected? In analogy with the example of executive and legislative powers given above, ICANN should be accountable to the democratically elected representatives of the Global Mulktistakeholder Community. There should therefore a a workable mechanism to implement such legal and formal representation from the Global Mulktistakeholder Community. Taking into account that based on the discussions currently being followed and the consensus being emerged, the Global Mulktistakeholder Community is composed of four following categories Governments, Private Sector, Civil Society and , Technical Community and Academic ( not Academia) Consequently, the entity to which ICANN should be accountable needs to have representatives of these four categories of Global Mulktistakeholder Community with equal footing in legal and operational functions terms NetMundial was an example of such composition in which the members of the Executive Global Community were selected ( in future should be elected ) from these four categories .In fact the above-mentioned Executive Committee had 24 members composed of 12 from Governments , three from Civil Society, three from Private Sector three from technical Community and three from academia ( in fact the correct appellation is Academic ) The above-mentioned composition representing Global Multistakeholder Community did work well and produced positive results. However, the composition and the elkection procedure could be further explored and improved. It is worth to mention that ,currently, ICANN Board performs that accountability However, NTIA currently perform some sort of over sighting. It is to be noted that ICANN Board Members are nominated by NOMCOM without being democratically being elected .In fact the ICANN Board’s Members are elected by no one and are *accountable* to no one. If this crucial and fundamental issue is not duly addressed ,the whole issue of accountability is totally confusing and make the situation worse than today Why worse? Because today, at least, NTIA ,is being held responsible in an overall manner. However, after the transition of the INANA Stewardship Function to a non-defined and non-executable Global Multitystakehoder Community, no one could be held responsible This is the real dilemma. Regards Kavouss 2014-11-25 10:13 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:
Dear All ..
I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014:
"I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process."
Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process ..
If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest ..
I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version ..
How does this sound?
Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thank you Mr. Arasteh .. It’s been a very hectic time and I could not pay due attention to the ongoing discussions .. Hope to get back to you shortly on this .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:15 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear Manal, Thanks again for your hard work I think ,in order to enable the community to duly react, we need to release this FAQ as soon as possible By the way, for the issue of ICANN accountability and the activities' of CCWG, I did send a message to the GAC chair and GAC Members and asked every body to duly react on this very important matter. I am copy the message to all ICG in order to receive comments from them as soon as possible to enable me to pursue the matter. Here is the message Some principles to be observed in addressing the Accountability issues either on a global aspect relating to ICANN accountability or, a limited sphere ,relating to the transition of IANA stewardship Discussion What is the accountability?’ The state of being accountable <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accountable> , liable, or answerable What does it meant to be accountable? To be subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable. Accountability implies that a person or an executive entity to be accountable to someone else or to an entity of real /actual or of legal nature? In a democratic governing system, the executive power, the government in an individual or in a collective/collegial manner is accountable to the public in an indirect manner. Such accountability is ensured to be properly functioned so that the executive entity ( government, individually and collectively is accountable to the legislative entity which is representative of the public due to the fact that they have been democratically elected by the public . Now coming to the accountability oif ICANN . To whom or to which entity ICANN is and should be accountable The answer was given by ICANN management was that ICANN would be accountable to Global Multistakehoder Community. Now the question arises is who represent that Global Multistakehoder Community.? Is there any formal representation of the Global Multistakehoder Community.to which the ICANN would be accountable? If yes Who these representatives are? Who elect them? How they are elected? In analogy with the example of executive and legislative powers given above, ICANN should be accountable to the democratically elected representatives of the Global Mulktistakeholder Community. There should therefore a a workable mechanism to implement such legal and formal representation from the Global Mulktistakeholder Community. Taking into account that based on the discussions currently being followed and the consensus being emerged, the Global Mulktistakeholder Community is composed of four following categories Governments, Private Sector, Civil Society and , Technical Community and Academic ( not Academia) Consequently, the entity to which ICANN should be accountable needs to have representatives of these four categories of Global Mulktistakeholder Community with equal footing in legal and operational functions terms NetMundial was an example of such composition in which the members of the Executive Global Community were selected ( in future should be elected ) from these four categories .In fact the above-mentioned Executive Committee had 24 members composed of 12 from Governments , three from Civil Society, three from Private Sector three from technical Community and three from academia ( in fact the correct appellation is Academic ) The above-mentioned composition representing Global Multistakeholder Community did work well and produced positive results. However, the composition and the elkection procedure could be further explored and improved. It is worth to mention that ,currently, ICANN Board performs that accountability However, NTIA currently perform some sort of over sighting. It is to be noted that ICANN Board Members are nominated by NOMCOM without being democratically being elected .In fact the ICANN Board’s Members are elected by no one and are accountable to no one. If this crucial and fundamental issue is not duly addressed ,the whole issue of accountability is totally confusing and make the situation worse than today Why worse? Because today, at least, NTIA ,is being held responsible in an overall manner. However, after the transition of the INANA Stewardship Function to a non-defined and non-executable Global Multitystakehoder Community, no one could be held responsible This is the real dilemma. Regards Kavouss 2014-11-25 10:13 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>: Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Dear Manal, I agree. Thank you for this long, meticulous piece of work. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> À: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Lundi 1 Décembre 2014 14:01:48 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ 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

Manal, Thanks for your persistence in developing this document. In my opinion, if it is to remain relevant it needs to be published immediately. I have no objections to any part of it at this time. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Agreed. I support publishing the FAQs. Thanks to Manal for leading this effort. Best, Keith #2 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:50 AM To: 'Manal Ismail'; 'WUKnoben'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Manal, Thanks for your persistence in developing this document. In my opinion, if it is to remain relevant it needs to be published immediately. I have no objections to any part of it at this time. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I agree, too, Manal. Thanks very much for your work! Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:51 PM To: mailto:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Agreed. I support publishing the FAQs. Thanks to Manal for leading this effort. Best, Keith #2 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:50 AM To: 'Manal Ismail'; 'WUKnoben'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Manal, Thanks for your persistence in developing this document. In my opinion, if it is to remain relevant it needs to be published immediately. I have no objections to any part of it at this time. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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

+1 and thank you Manal for your hard work. Mary Uduma On Monday, December 1, 2014 9:47 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote: #yiv4716653673 v\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 o\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 w\00003a* {}#yiv4716653673 .yiv4716653673shape {}#yiv4716653673 #yiv4716653673 -- _filtered #yiv4716653673 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4716653673 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv4716653673 #yiv4716653673 p.yiv4716653673MsoNormal, #yiv4716653673 li.yiv4716653673MsoNormal, #yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 a:link, #yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4716653673 a:visited, #yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4716653673 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 p.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate, #yiv4716653673 li.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate, #yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673BalloonTextChar {}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle20 {color:windowtext;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle23 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 span.yiv4716653673EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4716653673 .yiv4716653673MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4716653673 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4716653673 div.yiv4716653673WordSection1 {}#yiv4716653673 I agree, too, Manal. Thanks very much for your work! Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:51 PMTo: mailto:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Agreed. I support publishing the FAQs. Thanks to Manal for leading this effort. Best, Keith #2 From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:50 AM To: 'Manal Ismail'; 'WUKnoben'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Manal, Thanks for your persistence in developing this document. In my opinion, if it is to remain relevant it needs to be published immediately. I have no objections to any part of it at this time. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 8:02 AM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ 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 Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with ³functions operator² or ³stewardship² or ³functions², and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below. 1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous ³IANA². The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it. The Operational Communities¹ of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2) For question 13, isn¹t it more correct to say: ³Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?² Added the word ³stewardship² which is highlighted in yellow. The committee¹s charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase ³IANA transition² is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also. 3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG² Please modify IANA with ³functions² or ³stewardship² or ³operator². There is no entity called ³IANA². Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ. Best regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call ..
I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now ..
Awaiting your feedback ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too?
Kind Regards --Manal
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap.
I¹m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board¹s role) inserted.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From:Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM
To:internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process."
Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process ..
If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version ..
How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward ..
Kind Regards --Manal
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I agree with Elise's proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition" without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named "IANAPlan," many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with "functions operator" or "stewardship" or "functions", and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below. 1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous "IANA". The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it. The 'Operational Communities' of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2) For question 13, isn't it more correct to say: "Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?" Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow. The committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase "IANA transition" is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also. 3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG..." Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator". There is no entity called "IANA". Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ. Best regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To:internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Apologies for my delayed reply .. I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals .. So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. Another alternative can be, just to delete 'IANA', to read as follows: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting 'IANA' instances replaced by 'IANA functions' .. Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. I agree with Elise's proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition" without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named "IANAPlan," many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with "functions operator" or "stewardship" or "functions", and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below. 1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous "IANA". The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it. The 'Operational Communities' of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2) For question 13, isn't it more correct to say: "Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?" Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow. The committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase "IANA transition" is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also. 3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG..." Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator". There is no entity called "IANA". Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ. Best regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" < internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Either way is fine with me From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 6:10 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Elise Gerich; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Apologies for my delayed reply .. I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals .. So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. Another alternative can be, just to delete 'IANA', to read as follows: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting 'IANA' instances replaced by 'IANA functions' .. Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. I agree with Elise's proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition" without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named "IANAPlan," many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with "functions operator" or "stewardship" or "functions", and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below. 1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous "IANA". The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it. The 'Operational Communities' of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2) For question 13, isn't it more correct to say: "Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?" Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow. The committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase "IANA transition" is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also. 3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG..." Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator". There is no entity called "IANA". Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ. Best regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, "internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Manal Ismail<mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To:internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Thanks Milton for your quick response and appreciated flexibility .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:26 AM To: Manal Ismail; 'Elise Gerich'; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Either way is fine with me From: Manal Ismail [mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg] Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 6:10 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Elise Gerich; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Apologies for my delayed reply .. I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals .. So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. Another alternative can be, just to delete 'IANA', to read as follows: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting 'IANA' instances replaced by 'IANA functions' .. Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. I agree with Elise's proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition" without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named "IANAPlan," many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with "functions operator" or "stewardship" or "functions", and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below. 1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous "IANA". The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it. The 'Operational Communities' of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2) For question 13, isn't it more correct to say: "Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?" Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow. The committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase "IANA transition" is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also. 3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG..." Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator". There is no entity called "IANA". Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ. Best regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Manal, Thanks for your suggestions. My preference is for #1, though both are acceptable. Thank you, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Apologies for my delayed reply .. I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals .. So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG¹s hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. Another alternative can be, just to delete IANA¹, to read as follows: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG¹s hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration.
The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting IANA¹ instances replaced by IANA functions¹ ..
Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
I agree with Elise¹s proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an ³IANA transition² without also using the word ³stewardship.² This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named ³IANAPlan,² many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about.
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear Manal,
You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with ³functions operator² or ³stewardship² or ³functions², and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below.
1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous ³IANA². The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it.
The Operational Communities¹ of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
2) For question 13, isn¹t it more correct to say: ³Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?² Added the word ³stewardship² which is highlighted in yellow. The committee¹s charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase ³IANA transition² is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also.
3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG² Please modify IANA with ³functions² or ³stewardship² or ³operator². There is no entity called ³IANA².
Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ.
Best regards,
-- Elise
From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call ..
I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now ..
Awaiting your feedback ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too?
Kind Regards --Manal
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap.
I¹m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board¹s role) inserted.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From:Manal Ismail <mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM
To:internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process."
Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process ..
If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version ..
How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward ..
Kind Regards --Manal
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Hello Manal, my preference is the first proposal. I will be ok with the second option if the sentence is changed to read: “… . That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition proposal in the ICG’s hands, while its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process.” Thanks. - a. On Dec 4, 2014, at 03:10 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Apologies for my delayed reply .. I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals .. So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG’s hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration.
Another alternative can be, just to delete ‘IANA’, to read as follows: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG’s hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration.
The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting ‘IANA’ instances replaced by ‘IANA functions’ ..
Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
I agree with Elise’s proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an “IANA transition” without also using the word “stewardship.” This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named “IANAPlan,” many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about.
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with “functions operator” or “stewardship” or “functions”, and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below.
1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous “IANA”. The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it.
The ‘Operational Communities’ of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
2) For question 13, isn’t it more correct to say: “Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?” Added the word “stewardship” which is highlighted in yellow. The committee’s charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase “IANA transition” is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also.
3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG…” Please modify IANA with “functions” or “stewardship” or “operator”. There is no entity called “IANA”.
Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ.
Best regards, -- Elise
From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call ..
I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now ..
Awaiting your feedback ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too?
Kind Regards --Manal
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap.
I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From:Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process."
Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process ..
If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version ..
How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward ..
Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <ICG-FAQ-04Dec14 without 12 15.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Many thanks Elise and Adiel .. Apologies if you have received my email as it reads below, i.e. without the suggested strike through(s) ... We'll then proceed with the first proposal, which in its final view reads: Can I submit my own proposal? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority in the ICG's hands, while its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. Thanks again for your cooperation and flexibility .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Adiel Akplogan [mailto:adiel@afrinic.net] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:12 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Milton L Mueller; Elise Gerich; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Hello Manal, my preference is the first proposal. I will be ok with the second option if the sentence is changed to read: "... . That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition proposal in the ICG's hands, while its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process." Thanks. - a. On Dec 4, 2014, at 03:10 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Apologies for my delayed reply .. I fully agree that time is of essence and believe that this point is tackled within communities working on the transition proposals .. So to allow for other substantial discussions, I hope we can agree on one of the below suggested deletions, as a way forward: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. Another alternative can be, just to delete 'IANA', to read as follows: Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place? You can, but the ICG is not going to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in the ICG's hands, and its preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If a proposal is submitted directly to the ICG without participation from the operational communities, the ICG will forward that proposal to the relevant operational community(ies) for consideration. The first suggestion along with other non-controversial edits are attached (and uploaded on Dropbox) in a clean version, only highlighting 'IANA' instances replaced by 'IANA functions' .. Milton, Elise, please confirm an alternative to proceed with .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:10 PM To: 'Elise Gerich'; Manal Ismail; 'internal-cg@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. I agree with Elise's proposed change in question 9. However, I do not agree that we cannot refer to an "IANA transition" without also using the word "stewardship." This seems picky and arbitrary to me. For example, the IETF working group is named "IANAPlan," many others refer to it as the IANA oversight transition or the IANA transition. (See this page from APNIC http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition/IANA-Factsheet.pdf I think time is of the essence here we have a lot more important things to worry about. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elise Gerich Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:21 AM To: Manal Ismail; WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear Manal, You will see a trend in my request to please revise any stand alone references to IANA. There is no independent entity called IANA. It is more correct to use the word IANA with "functions operator" or "stewardship" or "functions", and those revisions will be consistent with the rest of the document. The examples to be revised are noted below. 1) For question 9, is it possible to remove the stand-alone IANA since it is not qualified as the IANA functions nor as the IANA functions operator? Below is the proposed text without the superfluous "IANA". The text that is deleted is highlighted in yellow and has a line thru it. The 'Operational Communities' of IANA are communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with internet names, numbers, or protocol parameters, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2) For question 13, isn't it more correct to say: "Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA stewardship transition should take place?" Added the word "stewardship" which is highlighted in yellow. The committee's charter is to come up with an IANA stewardship transition which is more specific than the general statement of IANA transition. The phrase "IANA transition" is repeated in the response to question 13, and should be revised to include the work stewardship also. 3) In response to question 22, it says: ". After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG..." Please modify IANA with "functions" or "stewardship" or "operator". There is no entity called "IANA". Thank you for all the work you have done on behalf of the committee to maintain and update the FAQ. Best regards, -- Elise From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 5:01 AM To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call .. I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now .. Awaiting your feedback .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too? Kind Regards --Manal From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap. I'm ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board's role) inserted. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From:Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To:internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update .. Dear All .. I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process." Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process .. If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version .. How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward .. Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <ICG-FAQ-04Dec14 without 12 15.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

Hi Manal, first, thank you for all your effort on this. I support publishing it as is, noting that we will update it as we progress. Best, Lynn On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Dear All ..
Reference to the below exchange, please find attached, and on Dropbox, an updated version of the FAQ reflecting Wolf-Ulrich's below suggestion and some edits to Q#12 to reflect the most recent discussions .. I re-iterate my suggestion to update the posted FAQ as soon as possible .. I believe this was supported by colleagues who responded so far as well as by Alissa on our last call ..
I believe all edits are either minor or non-controversial .. The only substantial edits are that of questions 12 & 15 .. So in case some colleagues do not agree to having them posted as attached, I suggest that we proceed with all the rest and postpone those two for now ..
Awaiting your feedback ..
Kind Regards --Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:30 PM To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thank you Wolf-Ulrich .. I thought this point is already covered and, in fact, is the focus of Q#16 .. Would you still like to have it added to Q#15 too?
Kind Regards --Manal
From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:57 PM To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Thanks very much Manal. I agree with Kavouss to amend the already published FAG accordingly asap.
I’m ok with it but have a slight amendment to #15 (Board’s role) inserted.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Manal Ismail Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:13 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] FAQ update ..
Dear All ..
I have paused our FAQ discussions based on what Alissa suggested, in her email dated 27 October, 2014: "I think beyond the FAQ text (and probably before we add the new text to the FAQ web site), the main thing we need to agree on as the ICG is the full list of what our plans, requirements, and expectations are vis a vis the proposal submission process."
Yet, before we lose track, I'm attaching (also on Dropbox) a version, dated 24Nov14, which I hope accurately reflects all previous discussions .. I suggest that, as we have agreed that the FAQ is going to be a living document, that we do not delay its posting pending finalization of discussions on all questions .. As a living document, it's hard to have a complete perfect version all the time .. Additionally, the FAQ has to provide timely information and some questions are more urgent than others .. So my suggestion is that, as we continue discussion on the Board role, if the current answer is still unsatisfactory to some, we can proceed with other updates such as Q#19 on whether the target deadline has been delayed, and Q#22 on the relationship between the ICG work and the ICANN accountability process ..
If acceptable, I would hence suggest that ICG members skim through the track changes and identify any questions were there are still concerns or uncompleted discussions .. We can then halt updates concerning those specific questions and proceed with the rest .. I think we should also have some way to highlight new or modified questions as well as the date of last update, on the online version ..
How does this sound? Looking forward to receiving your views and any other suggestions for better ways forward ..
Kind Regards --Manal _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <ICG-FAQ-01Dec14.docx>_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (10)
-
Adiel Akplogan
-
Drazek, Keith
-
Elise Gerich
-
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Lynn St.Amour
-
Manal Ismail
-
Mary Uduma
-
Milton L Mueller
-
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
-
WUKnoben