<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:LucidaSans-Typewriter;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Just to confirm that the below conclusion matches my initial
understanding too ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Input from CCWG-Accountability work stream 1 will reach the ICG
indirectly through the CWG-IANA's proposal on Names, and would hence be covered
in the final proposal assembled by the ICG ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Having said that, it's clear that the overall timeline of the
ICG depends on the timelines of both interrelated processes, CWG & CCWG .. But
I also believe that, with the ongoing close coordination between both groups, CWG
& CCWG, the Names proposal submitted to the ICG is expected to be in synch
with CCWG WS1 recommendations ..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Kind Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>--Manal <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Drazek, Keith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Kavouss Arasteh<br>
<b>Cc:</b> internal-cg@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks Kavouss. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>If that is your understanding, we are in complete agreement.
Thanks for clarifying. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Best, Keith<br>
<br>
<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Kavouss Arasteh
[mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 13, 2015 8:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Drazek, Keith<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Patrik Fältström; internal-cg@icann.org;
ccwg-accountability1@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Keith<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs
who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG
indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of
Work stream 1 of CCWG<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>No need any intervention of ch chairs at all<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Kavouss<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring
discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr.
Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question
of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the
ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have
no objection to us doing so.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Keith <br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dear Keith<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>No it does not<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by
ICG in a direct or indirect manner.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by
ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG
the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>By the way you may be in the same camp of the
person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any
input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you
associate yourself is not correct<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Kavouss <br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <<a
href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi Kavouss, <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I believe you are referring to my previous statements that
the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the
CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no
interaction or input exchanged among the various groups.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver
its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG
will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3
operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are
currently on parallel tracks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the
ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the
CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not
inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the
two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I
believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to
take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts,
unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As
Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various
groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the
CCWG to the ICG.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Keith<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dear Patrik<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Let us not play with words<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any
input from CCGG work stream 1<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly
remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1
.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Tks Kavouss <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se">paf@frobbit.se</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <<a
href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"LucidaSans-Typewriter","serif"'>'ICG
does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that
statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it
again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly
to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before
transition is take place.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>My view:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is
all a question on what you mean by "input from".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups
report to each other.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no
contradiction between the two outputs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Because of that, coordination is needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the
other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the
other, which I do not think we do.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> Patrik<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>