[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All
It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in hurry and push CWG unnecessarily.
Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work stream 1 of CCWG.
Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid
People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently
Kavouss
       

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Chairs,
> 
> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
> 
> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs informed of this.
> 
> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% consistent with our earlier stated plans.
> 
> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
> 
> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
> 
> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg