[Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
mnuduma at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 14 23:20:09 UTC 2015
Thank you Alissa.
I have no objections to your suggestions and your formulation is good to go.
However, what would be the impact on our established timelines if the CWG asks for additional 4 weeks?
I participated in the parallel subgroup 3 of the CWG IANA call today, it looks like the group would refresh the process.
I am thinking, perhaps, the ICG may consider continuing with assessment of other communities' submissions (Protocol Parameters and Numbers) in line with the agreed finalization process, while waiting for the Names to complete its proposal.
The Chair may have to make a public statement regarding the development.
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
Wolf-Ulrich suggested on the call today that we send a note to the CWG to obtain more information about their expected timeline if it does indeed slip. I’m happy to send such a note if people agree. I’ve drafted something up below.
What do others think? Should we send a note? What do you think of the text below?
The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of January 30, 2015. We would ask that if you decide to revise your estimated completion date that you share with the ICG your revised expected timeline.
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg