[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Lynn
Tjhhank you very much for the efforts .
However, the last sentence
Quote

*" The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating
the performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required
to ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including
choosing/changing their IANA functions operator." *
Unquote
This does not reflect the reality. Infact there are other instants (
entities ) to take that responsibilty and not three community as such.
Pls once again either take the text from the final proposal from CWG
REGARDING THE pti, IFO, CSC AND IPR OR DELETE THAT PART .
iT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ESTABLISH A NEW RESPSPONSIBILTY FOR 3OCs , in
particular, NUMBERS Protocol& Parameter..
Moreover, it is oputside the ICG responsibiléity to make such statement.
I have not read the rest of the doc. and may come back,should I find some
thing to clarify
Regards
Kavouss
p


2015-08-16 16:23 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

>  Dear Lynn
> Tjhhank you very much for the efforts .
> However, the last sentence
> Quote
>
> The three Operating Communities (OC’s) are responsible for evaluating the
> performance of the IFO and for making whatever decisions are required to
> ensure their community’s needs and expectations are met, including
> choosing/changing their IANA functions operator.
>
> 2015-08-15 17:32 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear All
>> Sorry to be late
>> The answer to the question relating  to PTI to be found on the first
>> proposal of  CWG as was put yo public comment.
>> Nothing more and nothing less
>> Kavousd
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 15 Aug 2015, at 14:39, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Agree.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 5:19 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks Lynn and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this ..
>> >> Apologies for not being able to participate earlier ..
>> >> I'm fine with this version ..
>> >>
>> >> Kind Regards
>> >> --Manal
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>> Of Lynn St.Amour
>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:03 AM
>> >> To: Drazek, Keith
>> >> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Keith,
>> >>
>> >> any comments on the other FAQ?
>> >>
>> >> Lynn
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:49 PM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I support Milton's proposed edit.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Keith Drazek
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
>> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Looks OK to me.
>> >>>> If it's not too much of a nit, I would change the opening of the 6th
>> question as follows:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yours: As noted before, the US government no longer has root zone
>> change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Proposed: As noted before, the US government will no longer have
>> root zone change approval authority or contracting authority over ICANN
>> when the transition is complete.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf
>> >>>>> Of Lynn St.Amour
>> >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:15 PM
>> >>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>> >>>>> Importance: High
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dear ICG members,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thank you to all those who have reviewed these FAQs.  In the
>> >>>>> attached document, I accepted all those changes, and believe there
>> is only one
>> >>>>> remaining area needing review.   The response to the question:
>> "How is PTI
>> >>>>> different from the current IANA department?" was very focused on the
>> >>>>> naming functions while not making that explicit.  I added a few
>> >>>>> lines to try and clarify that (virtually all from the various
>> >>>>> proposals) and to include all the OC proposals.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A quick review would be very helpful and once we have agreement, I
>> >>>>> will work with the secretariat to get these posted.  Hopefully very
>> soon, given the>> comment period is well underway.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Also posted to Dropbox
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best,
>> >>>>> Lynn
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Internal-cg mailing list
>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Internal-cg mailing list
>> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Internal-cg mailing list
>> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150816/f662011c/attachment.html>