[Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?

Thu Jan 15 16:24:09 UTC 2015

Alissa,
Thanks for your kind efforts
However, one IMPORTANT PART of my edits has not been included and that is
Your text
Quote
  "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"
Unquote
My addition /revised text
Quote

 "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 including providing
sufficient time( Minimum 21,preferably 30 days tradition ICANN Commenting
period  for community to comment on CWG outcome "
Unquote
the addition ( reference to  public communing period is crucial as many
views were expressed after first CWG Draft dated 01 December 2014 requiring
that time for comments )
Regards
Kavouss

2015-01-15 16:58 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi all,
>
> I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate
> suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
>
> I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional
> accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I
> think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the
> CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate
> it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not
> think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they
> solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other
> further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not
> included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and
> it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
>
> 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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate
> receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate
> this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It
> would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major
> challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG
> coordination can be of assistance.
>
> We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target
> completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the
> group’s progress until its work is complete.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>
> On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Subject: **Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?*
> *Date: *January 15, 2015 at 2:50:12 AM PST
> *To: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, Thomas Rickert <
> rickert at anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>
> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>
> Dear All,
> I suggest the following to be added
>
> 1 in the parts proposed by Alissa
>
> "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. In this regard , ICG
> would appreciate receiving the estimated additional time required enabling
> CWG to complete its tasks. It is understood that that such an additional
> time should envisage  including sufficient commenting period from the
> community ( minimum traditional ICANN Commenting period  of 21 days ) .The
> above-mentioned overall  additional time required for CWG  to complete its
> works  should be formally communicated to ICG as soon as possible but not
> later than 31 January 2015 .
> It is understood that the accountability issue relating to the activities
> of CWG falling under Work Stream 1 of CCWG needs to be fully coordinated
> with CCWG before being submitted to ICG at the new /updated deadline .
> You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision
> and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here.
> I do not really understand the meaning of this added sentence by Wolf
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2015-01-15 11:27 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>
>>   Thanks Alissa,
>>
>> a note would be helpful.
>>
>> With regards to the text I suggest asking the CWG also - in case of time
>> revision - what are the major challenges they encounter (e.g. coordination
>> with CCWG-accountability).
>>
>> I've tried to insert it in your draft (see below). Please feel free to
>> polish.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:21 PM
>> To: ICG
>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
>>
>> 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.
>> You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision
>> and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150115/08e66fc7/attachment.html>