[Internal-cg] Continuing / Re-Chartering Thoughts

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Oct 18 08:35:33 UTC 2015


Daniel:

I would not call it a publication, but rather an interim publication 
awaiting finalization.  I then think we wait for Names and then publish 
the final, assuming the changes are minor - or consider a new comment 
period if the changes are substantial, and submit as appropriate related 
to the need for any further comment.  A slight modification to your 
suggestion because I am concerned we are starting to confuse the 
non-initiate in the steps of the process and the status of the proposal...

Agree on no unilateral modification of the charter.

Joe

On 10/18/2015 4:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Let me take the role of arguing against group-think. It may help that I
> am not in Dublin at this time. ;-)
>
> I understand that some want us to stay around to keep everyone,
> specifically ICANN, honest during implementation.
>
> Our current charter does not cover this. This requires a re-charter.
> Something like "Regularly compile information about the state of the
> transition and report it to the Internet community."
>
> We should not change the charter on our own initiative. If we do that
> our credibility will be that of self-appointed vigilantes. Even formally
> asking "How can we help further?" looks pathetic to me and it certainly
> would weaken our credibility going forward.
>
> Therefore I propose that we should just publish the proposal and say
> that we are done and will hibernate until we get the OK to submit it and
> answer possible questions about it.
>
> In response to our statement the OCs and others could ask us on their
> own initiative to do something in addition like "Regularly compile
> information about the state of the transition and report it to the
> Internet community." The OCs might even offer material support for this
> additional work to fund part of the secretariat and/or travel. If that
> were to occur we would very likely agree to do that and our mandate and
> credibility doing this would be very very strong.
>
> If the OCs actually manage to ask us to do this as a group or with
> coordinated language it would be strong evidence of their ability to
> coordinate.
>
> Would this be a way forward?
>
> Daniel
>
> PS: While I am on it may I also suggest that we ask all three OCs
> whether it is OK to submit the proposal and not just the CWG. The optics
> of that look much better to me personally.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list