patrik at frobbit.se
Sun Jul 20 06:47:00 UTC 2014
We need realistic timelines, not optimistic.
Count backwards regarding time needed inside ICANN organizations to reach consensus. I don't know gnso process. I know SSAC process.
I agree we shod shrink NTIA time although we should recognize their time (whatever that is, we shod ask them).
> On 20 jul 2014, at 02:03, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> i don't recall the part of the discussion yesterday where we came to the conclusion that the names communities would be able to come up with a proposal by early February. It seems unrealistic. We will be lucky to get something from them by mid-March.
> While we are giving the DNS part too little time, we seem to be giving the NTIA too much time. The NTIA has the comparatively simple task of determining whether a complete proposal a) has consensus, b) meets its criteria. I don't see how that takes 3 months. Furthermore, if the NTIA needs more time beyond the Sept deadline it can extend its contract for a month, two or three. No hard constraint there.
> I of course understand the need to set aggressive goals and also understand that work tends to expand to fill out allotted time, so I ask for comment by the others from the GNSO - knowing what you know about how the Council and other WGs in GNSO or CCWGs work, do you think it is realistic to ask for a complete consensus proposal from the GNSO, CCNSO and GAC by early February?
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:56 AM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline
> Russ, thanks.
> Here’s a version with suggested changes I tried to describe.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg