[Internal-cg] "Alternatives"

[Drazek, Keith]

In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone?

Best,
Keith


> On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
> To sum up the latest remarks on this thread:
> 
> - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered" (Manal);
> 
> - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record" (Manal);
> 
> - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques);
> 
> - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques).
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
> À: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
> 
> 
>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote:
>> Dear Jean-Jacques ..
>> 
>> At least this is my understanding ..
>> I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to 
>> provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, 
>> but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel 
>> would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record ..
> 
> I agree.  It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide 
> information about alternatives which were considered.
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM
>> To: Manal Ismail
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>> 
>> Dear Manal,
>> I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it 
>> is about consolidating the public record.
>> Best regards,
>> Jean-Jacques.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
>> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" 
>> <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
>> Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>> Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31
>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>> 
>> Dear All ..
>> 
>> I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to 
>> re-iterate the following suggestion in writing ..
>> 
>> If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA 
>> transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out 
>> to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public 
>> record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with 
>> Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & 
>> Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos 
>> Aires ICANN meeting 
>> (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), 
>> where he stated:
>> <insert relevant excerpt(s) if necessary> And consequently ask the OCs 
>> to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be 
>> useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the 
>> proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers 
>> to anticipated questions, etc ... ) ..
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Paul Wilson
>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM
>> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
>> 
>> Re
>> 
>>> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against 
>>> them?
>> 
>> I am happy with this option.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
>>> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they
>>> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down
>>> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they
>>> have chosen.
>> 
>> This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer 
>> we are looking for.
>> 
>> Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as:
>> 
>> “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide 
>> against them?”
>> 
>> Which I’d be ok with as well.
>> 
>> Paul.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org