[Internal-cg] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
paf at frobbit.se
Sat Jan 31 08:26:36 UTC 2015
This is noted, and I will adjust the agenda for the f2f meeting accordingly.
If there is someone on ICG that would like to be the lead for this discussion item (as Alissa will not be on site), please let me know.
> On 31 jan 2015, at 01:52, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> We have received a response to our inquiry to the CWG concerning the group’s 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.pdf>>. 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se>>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir at mbash.net <mailto:mbashir at mbash.net>>
>> Cc: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
>> Reply-To: <jrobinson at afilias.info <mailto: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 <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>]
>> Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16
>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 CWG’s major challenges to be to complete
>> your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of
>> 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.
>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg