<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>The statement has been posted here: <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en</a></div><div><br></div><div>I think the first question we should tackle as a group is whether we think this set of expectations as articulated by the Board is reasonable and feasible for the communities and for us to meet. Personally, my answer to both questions is yes. But I’d like to confirm that others feel the same way.</div><div><br></div><div>If we do think what the Board has set out is reasonable and feasible, then I agree with Joe that we should incorporate this information into our timeline discussion. Under our original timeline that we published in the fall, we would have been roughly in line with what the Board suggests; that is, we were aiming to submit the transition proposal to the Board in July and the CCWG is aiming to submit in June <<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/efcb6371/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129-0001.pdf">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/efcb6371/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129-0001.pdf</a>>. However, as we know, our timeline was predicated on us receiving all three community proposals sooner than we now know that we will.</div><div><br></div><div>So if we look at the two alternative timelines I put together last weekend (re-attached here and in Dropbox <<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0">https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0</a>>) — "Original with CWG Dependency" and “Optimized” — I think it’s fairly obvious that there is a good chance of us not being prepared to submit the transition proposal to the Board until after July. Thus, if we adopt either of those as our revised timeline, I think what we would need to do is continue to coordinate closely with the CCWG to ensure that they do not end up submitting their proposal to the Board too far in advance of when we think we will finish (or vice versa). And since we already have good coordination with them, I don’t think much else would need to be done now.</div><div><br></div><div>I do think it’s important for us to decide on how we’re revising our timeline so that we know the timing of *our* next steps, and so that we can communicate to the IETF and RIR communities about the timing we expect for their next steps while we await the CWG proposal. So I hope folks are looking at the revised timeline proposals and thinking about sending their feedback in the timeline thread on the list.</div><div><br></div><div>Alissa</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Feb 12, 2015, at 7:13 AM, joseph alhadeff <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
How would we factor this in the revision to our timeline?<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/12/2015 4:40 AM, WUKnoben wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D577F2E655D340A3A70079CB7E24F1E9@WUKPC" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Please find here the
statement as read. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><p class="MsoNormal"><font style=""><span><font face="Times New Roman">We have received several
questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN
will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG
and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We
hope the following will be helpful.</font></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font style=""><span><font face="Times New Roman">NTIA is expecting
coordinated proposals from both groups. They
cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the
ICG proposal will take into account the
accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG.
We are heartened by the close coordination between
the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the
CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals
at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives
these proposals, we will forward them promptly and
without modification to NTIA. As we have
previously stated, if we do submit the proposals
with an accompanying communication of comments,
they will be on points we had already shared with
the community during the development of the
proposals.</font></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font style=""><span><font face="Times New Roman">We therefore encourage the
groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure
ICANN receives the proposals together and is able
to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner.</font></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font style="" face="Times New Roman">With respect to
improvements in our accountability, we are
definitely open to improvements.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<font face="Times New Roman">It will also be posted </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"><br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Wolf-Ulrich </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Internal-cg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>