[Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session

[Mueller, Milton L]

I agree with Narelle, Joe and Jean-Jacques. 
Are we all in consensus about the fact that we "exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its submission." 

Do we have a common understanding of what "acceptance" means?

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Narelle Clark
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 2:31 AM
> To: Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>; Daniel Karrenberg
> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> And agree with Joe and Jean-Jacques
> 
> Narelle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Joseph Alhadeff
> Sent: Monday, 19 October 2015 4:42 PM
> To: Daniel Karrenberg
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session
> 
> I understand our role to exist until the acceptance of the proposal not just its
> submission.  But in that time only NTIA would be in a position of sending it
> back to us for specific work...   Any other scenario does not serve the
> collective interests of the stakeholders who sent us here.... Agree with Jean-
> Jacques that I hope not to find out...
> 
> Joe
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> > On Oct 18, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Daniel Karrenberg
> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 18.10.15 17:01 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
> >>
> >> Are we really prepared -and more importantly, does our mandate
> allow/require us- to CHANGE the Transition Plan AFTER we have sent it to the
> NTIA?
> >
> > Jean-Jaques,
> >
> > There is a scenario where NTIA might suggest changes to us and via us
> > to the OCs. If the OCs react to that and make changes to their input
> > to us I consider it to be within our current mandate and charter to
> > apply the same process we have used thus far to produce a revised
> > proposal. In my mind this is very much more clearly in our mandate
> > than playing a role in implementation. In fact I see little
> > alternatives to using the ICG process to make any such revisions should they
> be required.
> >
> > I consider this an unlikely, yet possible scenario. I hope very much
> > that this scenario will not occur.
> >
> > Hence I have not adapted the language. If this remains an issue I
> > would welcome alternative words.
> >
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >> Jean-Jacques.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
> >> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> >> Envoyé: Dimanche 18 Octobre 2015 12:56:28
> >> Objet: [Internal-cg] Q&As also for engagement session
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here are a few suggestions for Q&As as requested by Alissa. They seem
> >> straightforward to me and useful for tomorrow. Could we hear support?
> >>
> >>
> >> Q: When will the ICG proposal be ready?
> >>
> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the coming
> >> few weeks. We will then seek confirmation from the CWG that their
> >> requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the
> >> parallel accountability process (CCWG). In the meantime anyone can
> >> use the final draft in preparing for the time when we will submit it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Q: What is the status of the final draft of the proposal.
> >>
> >> A: It is the result of the ICG process as far as ICG is concerned.
> >> ICG does not plan to make any revisions out of its own accord.
> >>
> >>
> >> Q: When will ICG submit the proposal to NTIA?
> >>
> >> A: We will communicate the proposal to the ICANN board for
> >> transmission to NTIA as soon as we have confirmation from the CWG
> >> that their requirements regarding ICANN accountability have been met.
> >> As to when exactly this will be, please ask the CWG.
> >>
> >>
> >> Q: What will the ICG do between now and the end of the transition?
> >>
> >> A: We expect publish our final draft of the proposal in the next few
> >> weeks. We will seek confirmation from the CWG that their requirements
> >> regarding ICANN accountability have been met by the parallel
> >> accountability process (CCWG). Once we have that confirmation we will
> >> submit the proposal and be available for some time to answer possible
> >> queries about the proposal. This would complete our mandate.
> >>
> >> We have no plans to do anything else. If there were widely supported
> >> requests to extend our mandate and charter we would of course discuss
> >> them. If there were any requests from the OCs to change the proposal
> >> we would be available to coordinate this as we have done until now.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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