[Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?

Joseph Alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Jan 15 12:58:48 UTC 2015

Perhaps we could just use the few words that you used to define conditional accountability to avoid objections or misperceptions?

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi Kavouss,
> The term conditional accountability has been coined in the CWG-IANA to identify the dependence of their work on the CCWG-Accountability.  It sort of appeared from the discussions over the high-intensity work weekend to mean “conditions of CWG proposal [that] may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG.”
> I’m sure that ICG doesn’t need to use the same term, especially if we see it as “misleading, vague, ambiguous and unacceptable.”  Nevertheless, I do think that it attempts to label an important concept - that the names-community proposal might be subject to the ICANN accountability track providing certain elements.  However we label that idea, I would not want us to lose sight of the linkage between the two areas of work and the different timescales that the CCWG-Accountability is working to.
> Cheers
> Martin
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
> Sent: 15 January 2015 08:46
> To: Joseph Alhadeff
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
> Dear All,
> I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability" that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term
> Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have .
> 2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
> No objections
> Sent from my iPad
> > On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 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?
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Dear CWG,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150115/94129c32/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list