kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 01:15:19 UTC 2015
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and wise advice.
I have raixsed this issue many times and every time I was told by somebody
in ICG that for the sake of solidarity I do not name( please refer to my
comments at several call and the corresponding transcript) but the answer
that was given was.
'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that
statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise
it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was
exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed
before transition is take place. See CCWG CHARTER,
Once again sincere thanks to you in razing such a vital question
2015-02-12 22:00 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> The term “ready for implementation” needs to be subject to a lot of
> critical scrutiny.
> On my way to an airport now but will give it more scrutiny soon.
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:10 AM
> *To:* internal-cg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICANN52
> Dear colleagues,
> my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship
> Transition and the future ICG related work:
> - see *statement from Steve Crocker*, ICANN Board Chair:
> *We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how
> ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream
> 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful.*
> *NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot
> act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into
> account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are
> heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons
> from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at
> roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will
> forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have
> previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying
> communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared
> with the community during the development of the proposals.*
> *We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to
> ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to
> NTIA in a coordinated manner.*
> *With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely
> open to improvements*.
> He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the
> CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability.
> Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline
> - *Larry Strickling, NTIA* Assistant Secretary, in a session on
> Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from
> the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole
> should be ready for implementation.
> From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol
> proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness.
> I’d like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and
> the potential consequences.
> Best regards
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg