[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
jon at donuts.co
Fri Feb 20 13:12:32 UTC 2015
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and
related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the
accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes,
this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance
of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of
the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent
and should appropriately coordinate their work.
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a valid CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
> It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
> You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
> PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
> Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-)
> Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
> On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> 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
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg