[Internal-cg] Stitching things together

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Thu Jun 4 12:03:03 UTC 2015

I also agree that it's not a matter of finding ourselves a role ..
My understating is that the ICG role is to facilitate and coordinate among the operational communities on one hand and assemble and deliver the final proposal on the other ..
I don't mind drafting our own, summary, introduction, preamble, letter, whatever we agree to call it, and leave the 3 separate proposals as is .. But I don't see a point then in calling each of them 'combined proposal' .. to me they are more of annexes or attachments to whatever is going to be our final delivery .. 
Do I understand right or am I missing something?

Kind Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:07 AM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together

Dear Jari,

you're so right, "appearing to "add value" is not a goal in itself". The aim is not to be "appearing" anything, but to effectively add value. While scrupulously respecting our remit, hopefully the value of our work will be more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, why bother?

I'm looking forward to being part of our team work for that, whether in a Preamble, Preface or Conclusions.

Best regards,

----- Mail original -----
De: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 3 Juin 2015 06:58:15
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together

> Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. 
> We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them.
> In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent  presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. 
> Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. 
> We will have plenty to do. 

What Milton said.

And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there.

Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that preamble…

The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a preface/preamble is needed.


Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list