[Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
elise.gerich at icann.org
Sat Jan 31 06:29:20 UTC 2015
I am forwarding this clause from the contract because it may have some
relevance in light of the CWG¹s estimate for its timetable when we are
discussing the timeline at our next meeting .
Section I.39 52.217 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract states:
³The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to
the Contractor within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the
contract; provided that the Governmnet gives the Contractor a preliminary
written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the
contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Date: Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM
To: ICG <internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with
> We have received a response to our inquiry to the CWG concerning the group¹s
> timing and progress.
> I would like to suggest that we reserve some time (at least 90 minutes) at our
> face-to-face meeting next week to discuss the impact of the response on our
> process timeline
> df>. I will circulate a proposal for modifying our timeline in advance of the
> face-to-face meeting. If you have thoughts in the meantime, please share them
> on this thread.
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Subject: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
>> Date: January 30, 2015 at 5:37:21 AM PST
>> To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>,
>> "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir at mbash.net>
>> Cc: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>> Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,
>> Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some
>> more detail.
>> Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to
>> respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of
>> 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has
>> involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work
>> required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key
>> dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a
>> three key points:
>> 1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily
>> mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs.
>> 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work,
>> not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves.
>> 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and
>> the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.
>> Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide
>> a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case
>> seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be
>> signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with
>> the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas
>> of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity
>> periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting
>> of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable
>> and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on
>> the diagram. They include but are not limited to:
>> A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal
>> B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific
>> content of any such advice
>> B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the
>> outcome of the work of the CWG
>> Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the
>> support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely
>> fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that
>> we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit
>> target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may
>> not be achievable.
>> We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to
>> work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of
>> and engaged in our progress to that end.
>> Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.
>> Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
>> Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG
>> correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with
>> the current timetable of the ICG
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16
>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG
>> 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
>> 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the
>> CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate
>> time for community consultation. 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 CWG¹s major challenges to be to complete
>> your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of
>> We appreciate the CWG¹s continued diligence in working towards target
>> completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the
>> group¹s progress until its work is complete.
>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Internal-cg