[Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs

[Subrenat, Jean-Jacques]

Dear Colleagues, 

Keith (Drazek), thanks for pointing out that the proposed modifications were intended for a message to the CCWG. As such, I agree with the proposed wording and the improvements suggested by Russ and Paul.

I was making a wider point, also made on the other thread, that we should limit ourselves to the linguistic and stylistic improvements agreed upon in our Dublin meeting, for
- our Transition Proposal,
- and our Summary Report of Comments received (and I've thanked Manal on a separate email for integrating our agreed remarks into the latter).

While understanding the substantive suggestions made by colleagues, mostly from the OCs, I must remark that, since the early days of the ICG, we have collectively granted the OCs special attention in the drafting process. This is reflected in the presentation of the Transition Proposal, which even in its final form has 3 separate contributions rather than a synthesis. I consider that the other communities in the ICG have given the OCs adequate space, time and consideration. The resulting Proposal is good, and although it could (perhaps) still be improved, our colleagues from the OCs should now
- consider it final,
- accept, without reservations, the request I formulated on behalf of the ALAC, and supported by several colleagues (GAC, Civil society), that we remain involved all together in the ICG, as long as our group has not been terminated.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.







----- Mail original -----
De: "Keith Drazek" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>, "ICG Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 16:53:15
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs

I agree Jean-Jacques. However, I believe this draft text is intended for the letter from our Co-Chairs to the CCWG Co-Chairs as agreed yesterday, not the ICG report. Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken. Best, Keith

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 24, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
> Copy of a message sent on another thread a couple of minutes ago:
> 
> "Colleagues,
> 
> I am opposed to any further addition or deletion of the texts we agreed during our final meeting this week. We only agreed that some grammatical or stylistic improvements could be brought, if truly necessary.
> 
> I kindly request our Chairs to make the ICG abide by the conclusions we reached in Dublin. Thank you.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
> À: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
> Cc: "ICG Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Envoyé: Samedi 24 Octobre 2015 14:04:52
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] DRAFT message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG Chairs
> 
> Russ, I support something along these lines.
> 
> One observation is that there is a certain contradiction here:
> 
> “We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement”
> 
> and
> 
> “the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI”
> 
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
>> On 24 Oct 2015, at 20:04, Russ Housley wrote:
>> 
>> I have updated the draft text for the message from the ICG Chairs to the CCWG chairs:
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> = = = = = = = =
>> 
>> Dear CCWG Chairs,
>> 
>> During our discussions in Dublin, the ICG recognized that the mission statement in the ICANN Bylaws will be out of date as the CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals are implemented.  This is especially important since the mission statement is intended to become a fundamental bylaw.  We have no interest in telling ICANN what belongs in the mission statement, and others have already made suggestions.  For example, the IAB offered some text in June 2015 as part of their response to the CCWG public comment; see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-ccwg-accountability-draft-report/.  The ICG believes that the mission statement must accurately reflect the ICANN organizational scope and structure.  In addition, if making the mission statement a fundamental bylaw is not intended to be an impediment to the separation of PTI and ICANN, then the mission statement ought to reflect the mission of ICANN without PTI. The ICG asks the CCWG make the ICANN mission statement current and accurate before it becomes a fundamental bylaw.
>> 
>> Thanks for your consideration,
>> ICG Chairs
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org