kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 12:52:12 UTC 2015
No it does not
Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner.
Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met.
By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct
Sent from my iPhone
> On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> Hi Kavouss,
> I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups.
> Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks.
> Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG.
> That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun.
> We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG.
> I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks.
> On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Patrik
>> 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 .
>> Tks Kavouss
>> 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.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg