<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>First of all, I have certain doubt about the newly suggested terms " Conditional Accountability" which is vague, misleading, legally confusing .I therefore do not support hat at all.</div><div>Secondly, Wolf referred to this term last night and disagreed to that and wanted to explain my disagreement but there was no time to discuss that.</div><div>I fully support the Note initially prepared by Alissa BUT MODIFIED BY ME as the Alissa first not was incomplete ..</div><div>Thirdly. the accountability issue as being discussed at CWG and lack of clear idea on when it would be completed by them and issued for public comment providing sufficient time for public to comment ,minimum of 21 days and then TO BE CHECKED BY CCWG under their Work Stream 1 as contained in the Charter and then comes to ICG.</div><div>I have serious difficulties that only accountability relating to Naming come directly to ICG , after inclusions of comments from public without being discussed at CCWG under Work Stream TOGETHER WITHACCOUNTABILITY RELATING TO NUNBERS and PROTOCOL$ PARAMETERS.</div><div>We must do a complete and through accountability for all three issues of Naming, Numbers, and protocol and parameters..</div><div>There seems that some entities are in rush to make things being done incomplete and half done.</div><div>We are not comfortable</div><div>Chairs of the Groups need to carefully examine the case and listen to the public.</div><div>There are clear overlap between the tasks being done by CCWG and CWG and ICG .<br>Please be careful </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-15 13:13 GMT+01:00 Martin Boyle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk" target="_blank">Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Hi Kavouss,
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">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.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">I’m sure that ICG doesn’t
<i>need</i> 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Cheers<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Martin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 15 January 2015 08:46<br>
<b>To:</b> Joseph Alhadeff<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ICG<span><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability" that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have .<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">PLEASE AVOID TO INJECT AND PROPOGATE WRONG TERMS <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">KAVOUSS <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No objections<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> What do others think? Should we send a note? What do you think of the text below?<br>
><br>
> Alissa<br>
><br>
> ----<br>
><br>
> Dear CWG,<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Thank you,<br>
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>