kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 05:02:55 UTC 2015
Let us not play with words
Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1
I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 .
Sent from my iPhone
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> '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.
> My view:
> There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".
> The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.
> There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.
> Because of that, coordination is needed.
> But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg