[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jan 30 14:25:59 UTC 2015
Hi,
Makes sense, but perhaps we should put a vote on internal/external on
the schedule as a forcing function.
avri
On 30-Jan-15 09:10, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Excellent questions Avri. I think you are right about waiting for
> legal advice. I think that the advice has the potential to help us
> start converging. Also, I think continued community input may help as
> we see where those outside of the CWG evaluate the options.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria
> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 9:01 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate
> (RESEND with updated attachment)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I wonder with the fairly balanced and stable impasse we seem to have
> between internal and external models , how are we going to reach
> consensus.
>
> In some ways as we move toward a center point, the proposals become
> more or less similar except for the dividing line of internal or
> external. What sort of judgement will be required to decide which
> side of the line our solution will falls?
>
> At what point will we decide a vote is required? I do not personally
> favor a vote, but I also do not see great movement from one type of
> solution to the other. At some point we will need to decide either way.
>
> With the exception of a possible hybrid proposal that somehow manages
> to satisfy the urges of the inside model people and the outside model
> people, I do not see how we resolve this outside of a vote.
> Unfortunately I do not see such a proposal as being allowed by either
> side of this issue.
>
> Perhaps we should wait for the legal advice, but I am not sure why as
> both sides include many of the same legal elements. But I think we
> should ready ourselves for that vote.
>
> avri
>
> On 30-Jan-15 08:37, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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/20150130/cc845c39/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list