[Internal-cg] Consensus call: contracting/agreements
alissa at cooperw.in
Thu May 7 04:35:19 UTC 2015
Sure, but rather than use singular pronouns I’d like to use plural pronouns for the ICG since as a group we have an interest in the response, e.g.:
The ICG _has noted that_ it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at <insert link here>. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public. _You are kindly requested to examine the matter and inform us of your findings._
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On May 6, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Alissa
> Thank you again for your efforts
> If everybody agrees with the course of action that you proposed I would join the consensus to be emerged that you send the message on behalf of ICG but with the introductory words that I have suggested as well as with the closing phrase that I did suggest . These suggestions would in no way change the thrust and objectives of your recent edits
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 6 May 2015, at 17:10, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> I’d like to make a consensus call on our efforts related to contracting/agreements. Below I’ve included the text of the statement to be posted to our site and the email to be sent to the ICANN board chair. I’ve seen a good deal of support for this, with some disagreement about whether the email should be sent on behalf of the ICG or not, but I’d like to make a consensus call before proceeding.
>> Before May 8 at 23:59 UTC, please respond to this message to indicate whether or not you support publishing the statement and sending the email below.
>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship transition proceeds, operational communities have begun discussions with ICANN concerning existing and future contracts and other agreements called for in their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all interested parties express their opinions about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions, principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other agreements between the communities and the IANA functions operator. It is particularly crucial that the opinions of the proposed contracted parties be shared within the community processes as early as possible.
>> Email to Steve Crocker:
>> Dear Steve,
>> The ICG believes it would be beneficial for the transition process if ICANN could clarify its position related to the statement located at <insert link here>. Specifically, if ICANN takes issue with provisions in any of the draft proposals relating to contracts or other agreements, the ICG requests that those opinions be made public.
>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg