<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Patrik</div><div>Thank you very much for your message</div><div>See reply as below :</div><div><font color="#500050"> Considering the need to send a clear message to ICG regarding the Transition process, including the need and role of the operating communities in rejecting the IANA Budget.<br><br></font>Can you please expand on this. Who is to send a message to whom regarding IANA Budget, and why would that message go to ICG, and even if it is, why would this message passing be something to be discussed in ICG?</div><div><font color="#ff0000">1. ICG sends message to CCWG</font> <br><div><font color="#ff0000">P2.lease kindly look at Board's Comment on Recemmendation 4 in section 1b) " Board's comments and supporting rationale on IANA Budget"</font></div><div><font color="#ff0000">in which it is indicated that the operating communities who are already affected by the IANA Function Budget are the ONLY WHO HAVE SAY on IANA FUNCION BUDGET. The Board mentioned four entities: gTLD Registries, Regional Internet Registries ( RIRs) ,ccTLD rEGISTRIES , and IETF...</font></div><div><font color="#ff0000">Three of these four entities are already in the 3SOs ( ccNSO,GNSO and ASO ) However. IETF is not. </font></div><div><font color="#ff0000">This issue was preliminary discussed for the first round and will be discussed for the second; perhaps the last round on Thursday 14 January.</font></div><div><font color="#ff0000">The preliniary discussion almost recognized that IETF should be 7 is represented by IAB would be involved .This has not yet been confirmed.Moreover, that discussion DID NOT agreed that the rejection of the IANA Busget should only be done by these four entities without involving the entitre participating SOs /ACs ) either 5 or 4 ,depending on GACdecision yet to be taken)</font></div><div><font color="#ff0000">For these reasons ICG may wish to emphacise the role of IETF EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH iab IN THE PROCESS MENTIONED ABOVE.</font></div><div><font color="#ff0000"> </font><br> Let me, as chair of SSAC, say that messages regarding IANA Budget is already passed to CCWG, for example in the form of SAC-076 where SSAC as one of the chartering organizations said the following:</div></div><div><font color="#ff0000"><br></font></div><div>> The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject a part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#ff0000">The discussion is far more advancing from the time that such information was provided by SSAC to CCWG many months ago. Thus we need to take into account the latest développent of the matter <br></font><br> And I really hope CCWG take words like that from the chartering organizations seriously. If not, we have a completely different kind of problem with the process.</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#ff0000">some Chartering organizations have not yet provided their comments to the 3rd proposal as the formal deadline is 21 January 2016.</font></div><div><font color="#ff0000">I do not know whether ssac will review its initial comments or not.</font></div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div><div><div tabindex="0" id=":p8"><img src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-10 9:44 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manal@tra.gov.eg" target="_blank">manal@tra.gov.eg</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Many thanks Alissa ..<br>
The attached ccNSO council statement, on the 3rd draft proposal of the CCWG on ICANN Accountability, was shared on the CCWG mailing list ..<br>
If you and colleagues agree, it would be good if someone could provide us with further details .. or is it already part of agenda item 1 below?<br>
<br>
Kind Regards<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--Manal<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Internal-cg [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org">internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org</a>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper<br>
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 7:10 PM<br>
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group<br>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda<br>
<br>
Here is a proposed agenda for our call on Jan 13:<br>
<br>
1. Update on CCWG work (CCWG liaisons)<br>
2. Potential ICG meeting at ICANN 55 (Chairs)<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Alissa<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>