[CWG-Stewardship] URGENT - Re: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate

[Bernard Turcotte]

Berry or anyone,

Is this the final version and does it have a URL?

If so can I have it ASAP, as in now.

Thanks

B.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com> wrote:

> Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleagues,
>
> I sent Jonathan the wrong version, please see the attached timeline for the
> most recent version.
>
> My apologies for the error.
>
> Thank you.  B
>
> Berry A. Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
> 720.839.5735
> mail at berrycobb.com
> @berrycobb
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 06:27
> To: Alissa Cooper; Patrik Fältström; Mohamed El Bashir
> Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate
>
> Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,
>
> Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some
> more detail.
>
> Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to
> respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of
> 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This
> has
> involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work
> required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key
> dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a
> three key points:
>
> 1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily
> mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs.
> 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work,
> not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves.
> 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and
> the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.
>
> Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to
> provide
> a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case
> seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be
> signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with
> the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key
> areas
> of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity
> periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face
> meeting
> of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable
> and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on
> the diagram. They include but are not limited to:
>
> A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal B. Issues
> around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific content of any
> such advice B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations
> to
> support the outcome of the work of the CWG
>
> Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has
> the
> support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely
> fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that
> we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit
> target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may
> not be achievable.
>
> We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing
> to
> work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed
> of
> and engaged in our progress to that end.
>
> Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
>
> Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the
> CWG
> correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with
> the current timetable of the ICG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG
>
> Dear CWG,
>
> The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational
> communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions
> about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to
> complete
> its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of
> 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the
> CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate
> time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon
> as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful
> for
> you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to
> complete
> your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of
> assistance.
>
> We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target
> completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the
> group’s progress until its work is complete.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150203/9df13774/attachment.html>