wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Fri Feb 13 02:52:03 UTC 2015
In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the “names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals.
This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter.
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work:
a.. 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 accordingly.
a.. 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg