<div dir="ltr">Dear all,<div><br></div><div>Brief replies in line (and noting that the CCWG will be discussing this this week):</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 February 2015 at 01:17, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Jordan</div><div>May you kindly clarify what do you mean by :</div><div><div>'' <em>but that the integration of this work with the CWG given their conditionality around accountability for the IANA functions indicated to us, is just simply going to be impossible to manage in the "best case</em>".</div><div>Question</div><div>.Integration of what work with what action item of CWG ?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The broad ICANN accountability framework our CCWG is developing is going to have some kind of relationship with the narrow IANA accountability that the CWG is developing for the Names community (and that the numbers and protocols people have developed for their areas).</div><div><br></div><div>I am not sure if the CCWG can finalise their proposals before they know what our Work Stream 1 (pre-transition) conclusions are - and before they know what the ICANN Board will accept for implementation.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If they do try and finalise before our WS1 work is done, then they risk having made wrong assumptions about our conclusions and recommendations and so might, by accident, create problems for IANA accountability.</div><div><br></div><div>I think we might need to allow time in the process to make sure that these work together well. That doesn't quite seem to be in the schedule yet. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div> </div><span class=""><div><br></div><div>"<em>If we can end up with a "central case" then that will give the ICG time to review and rebuild its own schedule."</em></div><div><em> </em></div></span><div><em>Question</em></div><div><em>What central work ?</em></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The currently circulated schedule showing the work of the CCWG, CWG and ICG is attached. It is - and is labelled - "best case". That's the most hopeful outcome. I am just saying that rather than hopeful, we should have a "we think we really can manage this schedule" version, which I called the central case.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><em> </em></div><span class=""><div><br><em>"If that schedule is longer, it might have the added benefit of reducing the head-long rush and the risk of exhaustion for those parts of the community taking part in this process."</em></div></span><div><em>Question </em></div><div>Which schedule ?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The schedule of work for the CWG/CCWG/ICG.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Question</div><div>Why it would have added benefit ?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If we agree a realistic schedule we are confident we can meet, we will not be working ourselves to exhaustion trying to meet an impossible deadline.</div><div><br></div><div>That sounds like a benefit to me!</div><div><br></div><div>:-)</div><div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Regards</div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div></font></span></div></div><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-02-08 8:39 GMT+01:00 Thomas Rickert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de" target="_blank">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Jordan,<div>we will discuss the points you made. Thank you for your e-mail.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Thomas</div><div><br><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 08.02.2015 um 11:56 schrieb Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>:</div><br><div><div><div><div dir="ltr">Dear co-chairs, <div><br></div><div>I would like to request that we have enough time to discuss this week (and preferably in tomorrow's session, if we can) the schedule of work for this CCWG, and the scheduling links with the CWG and the ICG.</div><div><br></div><div>I am sure it will be on the agenda, but I think it is very important for the whole ICANN community that by the end of this week in Singapore, we understand the viability or otherwise of the timetable.</div><div><br></div><div>My initial thought is that we might be able to get *our* work done by June and in time for discussion at BA, but that the integration of this work with the CWG given their conditionality around accountability for the IANA functions indicated to us, is just simply going to be impossible to manage in the "best case".</div><div><br></div><div>If we can end up with a "central case" then that will give the ICG time to review and rebuild its own schedule. If that schedule is longer, it might have the added benefit of reducing the head-long rush and the risk of exhaustion for those parts of the community taking part in this process.</div><div><br></div><div>Looking forward to the conversation!</div><div><br></div><div>bests,</div><div>Jordan<br><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br><a href="tel:04%20495%202118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">04 495 2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</div></div>