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

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Can't resist: that means we might exist forever. ;-)

On 19.10.15 9:39 , Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> 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