[Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
joseph alhadeff
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Jan 15 16:53:30 UTC 2015
Looks good.
On 1/15/2015 11:36 AM, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
> Thanks Alissa,
>
> I agree
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
> Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> *From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, Thomas Rickert
>>>> <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill
>>>> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>
>>>> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the
>>>> revision and whetherthe 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
>>>> <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the
>>>> revision and whetherthe ICG is deemed to coordinate here.
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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/20150115/781feaaf/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list