joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Jul 20 09:07:17 UTC 2014
In the meeting some one had said That they has spoken to NTIA which said they didn't have a specific timeline in mind.
As to the finality of dates, recall that these are going to be sent to the communities for reaction, so we are in no way dictating the final timeline. This was also why the timeline document could not be posted yet. That being said, we all know that the process will always take as much time as provided, so when the communities look at the proposed timeline I think we all should provide an answer which, while as realistic as possible, remains challenging - we can all agree that we don't have the time available for a leisurely process.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 20, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 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
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg