That version is often called the "Snow" Our Father, as the melody is by Robert Snow. According to this page from NPM, the Snow version "will appear in the U.S. edition of the Missal as the primary version along with the ICEL settings."

All three on the ICEL are far better than the Snow version.

No offense, but this sounds like something that someone with a preconceived opinion would say. (Along the lines of, "Harumph. It's just not sacred music. It just isn't, and that's clear as day.") Could you explain how all three versions are not just "marginally better" or "substantially better," but in fact "far better" than the Snow?

Jeffrey wrote: "This proposed U.S. use is very unfortunate to me. Snow's version is a melodic distortion from the Latin in a number of ways. A new Missal is a great time for a fresh start. All three on the ICEL are far better than the Snow version."

I, too, disagree with this.
1. Certainly, Snow had his eye on the Latin "Pater Noster" when he composed his setting, but it is an original piece of music.
2. During the past 40 years of musical horrors in the liturgy, it was the Snow setting that brought reverence, decorum, and a sense of fervent prayer to the Mass. Even the people who like the "junk" sung at Mass will sing the Snow setting. For this reason, Mr. Snow deserves a medal of honor for keeping the faith alive in dire times.
3. Many of the new missal settings of the Ordinary--Latin to English chant--are interesting, but awkward. Case in point: the new missal English setting of Sanctus XVIII is a distortion of the rhythm and flow found in the Latin original. We need chant for the new missal. But, we need ORIGINAL chant melodies--music that fits the peculiarities and rhythms of English speech. Examples of this can be found in the music of Theodore Marier, David Hurd, and Jeff Ostrowski.
4. Even at Masses where there is a stubborn resistance to singing, people WILL sing the Snow "Our Father".
5. Next Advent, there will be many new texts and tunes to introduce. Why not keep the Snow? It will be an anchor, as it is now, when everything else will be so new.

Thank you all for your kind assistance. Most of the men in this year's class of transitional deacons (7) have vocal hurdles to overcome. Convincing them to sing the Mass will be a challenge so perhaps I can use the melody of the Snow version as an "anchor." I will of course teach them the other versions in the New Missal and they should also learn the Latin.

Yes, by continueing to not make the most of the Anglican translations of the ordinary of the mass, there is forever going to be a weakness in the english language plainchant.

The ICEL and whoever was their overseer has come closer to this approach, but continues to avoid doing it outright. It seems to forever try to reinvent the wheel, to outdo that which has already been proven through decades of usage in both eastern orthodox and various liturgical protestant churches.

The anglican translation as your basis, with minimal changes is the way to go. One could change the thee's and thous to yours and yous as done in the translation of the Archdiocese of Thyatera and Great Britain of the Ecumenical Patriachate (Greek Orthodox).

Example:

"Thou hast given us grace to make these common and united prayers, and hadst promised that when two or three agree in thy name Thou shall grant their requests; fulfill now the petitions of thy servants as is expedient, granting us in this present age the knowledge of thy truth and in the age to come, eternal life."

becomes:

"You have given us grace to make these common and united prayers, and have promised that when two or three agree in your name You will grant their requests; fulfill now the petitions of your servants as is expedient, granting us in this present age the knowledge of your truth and in the age to come, eternal life."

Thou the first example is clearly superior, the second example is a bearable compromise which in actuality is not significantly different.