[CCWG-ACCT] Public Comments

[Seun Ojedeji]

I agree with Kavouss about WS2 (post transition); there is need to have
enough time for that. However I think having definite timing for WS1 is
quite important. While September 30 should not be a reason to rush, at the
same time I believe it could at least serve as a deadline for WS1.

It's important to note that the longer the duration does not necessarily
mean it will  produce better outcome (it most likely will produce outcome
with views from fewer number of contributors). The momentum is there right
now and the world is following. If the ccwg cannot produce at least some
outcome on WS 1 by/before September (which is a whole year), then one may
question the capabilities of multistakeholder platforms.

I hope the co-chairs will be sensitive of the fact that not everyone is
interested in seeing this multistakeholder based process succeed in a
timely manner.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Mar 2015 17:13, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jordan,
> Dear Co Chairs
> Dear All,
> I think one public comment is not sufficient , Why for such an important
> issue only one period is forseen unless we are of the strong view that one
> dialogue between CCWG and the entire community is enough,in particular, for
> WS2 as the scope , nature and extent of that stream  is too complex .
> We need to revisit this item again.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2015-03-22 16:57 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>:
>
>> It's important to be clear that the current schedule proposes:
>>
>> ONE public comment period for WorkStream 1 matters (pre-transition)
>>
>> ONE public comment period for WorkStream 2 matters (post-transition)
>>
>> It remains to be seen whether it is possible to construct our
>> pre-transition proposal based on one comment period - hopefully this will
>> be clear by Tuesday afternoon.
>>
>> bests
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> On 22 March 2015 at 17:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kavouss,
>>>
>>> According to the timeline, there seem to be two 40 days public comments
>>> planned for the ccwg.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150129/c9bfee6e/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129-0001.pdf
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 22 Mar 2015 13:27, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> May somebody kindly mention how many public comments are foreseen and
>>>> what are the period(s) deadline for comments
>>>> It is important that atleast two public comments to be foreseen each
>>>> with atleast 21 days response period
>>>> KAVOUSS
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150322/01a9ac82/attachment.html>