[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jan 30 15:58:25 UTC 2015
Hi,
Then again the Poole proposal just discussed in RFP3 may the hybrid
position that dispels my doom and gloom.
avri
On 30-Jan-15 10:15, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Possibly a poll could be useful, though I am generally not in favor of
> polls.
>
> And I should have said a consensus call of members, not a vote.
> (I am sure there are some differences.)
>
> My point is at some point we need to figure out whether we are split
> along external/internal lines close to 50/50 or whether there is a
> consensus. I can't tell. To me it seems we are stably split.
>
> If that is the case, I think sending the IGC a decision that says we
> could not make up our minds, might not work so well.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 30-Jan-15 09:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>
>> One thing we could do is add a carefully worded question to insert in
>> the Discussion Document for Singapore. But I fear that it may not be
>> very helpful without legal advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 9:26 AM
>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate
>> (RESEND with updated attachment)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>> [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 <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150130/2d765649/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list