[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

Thu May 7 17:37:15 UTC 2015

I am quite sure Roelof that Strickling means exactly what you said.  I think
he would be surprised that you would read it the other way since I think he
would see the “ending of the contract” as the last day on which it is in
effect – which would either be Sept 30 or the date to which the contract is
extended.

I am also pretty sure that what they are looking for is a realistic estimate
so that they only have to do one single extension – not 3 months now and
then 3 more and 
.  In other words he is asking “how long do you REALLY
need?”   I will note as well the repeat of the requirement for
“implementation” – so the question is not “will we approve the changes in
Dublin?” which is, to my mind at least, a relatively realistic expectation
but rather “how long after the changes are approved in Dublin will it take
for them to be implemented?” – that is the Bylaws changed; and IRP set up;
and whatever structrures the CCWG and the CWG call for organized and the
functions transferred etc.  That seems to me like a much harder and more
indefinite question to answer

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Cc: Lise Fuhr
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft
proposal

What surprises me, is that the letter leaves room for (mis)interpretation on
the essential content:

“We have never viewed 30 September as a deadline, but have stated from the
beginning of this process that the transition planning should proceed to
whatever schedule the community sets” is clear and in line with what Mr.
Strickling has publicly stated numerous times. It suggests implicitely that
the contract will be extended if necessary to fit “whatever schedule the
community sets”.

However, the bit “..please bear in mind that the United States Government
will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items
identified 
 will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the
contract.” is not so clear.

We probably all assume that “the ending of the contract” refers to either 30
September 2015 or the end date of an (or the last of multiple) extension(s).

That is probably a safe assumption, but I fail to understand why Mr.
Strickling did not insert a sentence to make that absolutely clear to
anyone. Something like: “
prior to 30 September or the date to which the
NTIA will extend the present contract to fit the schedule set by the
community”.

Best,

Roelof

From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>
Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> >
Date: dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> "
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

Dear Colleagues, 

FYI attached is the feedback we have received from Jan Aart Scholte, our
independent Advisor. Jan raises some very useful points for our further
deliberations. 

I would suggest we count this as "public comment input #1" and add this to
our upcoming public comment analysis tool. 

Best
Mathieu

-------- Message transféré -------- 

Sujet : 

Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near final draft proposal

Date : 

Sun, 3 May 2015 14:14:43 +0000

De : 

Jan Aart Scholte  <mailto:jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se>
<jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se>

Pour : 

Adam Peake  <mailto:adam.peake at icann.org> <adam.peake at icann.org>,
CCWG-Advisors  <mailto:ccwg-advisors at icann.org> <ccwg-advisors at icann.org>

Dear All

Attached the promised more substantive comments for the CCWG on the draft
proposal of 1 May 2015. Really impressive that things have got this far
already, though as ever there can be suggestions for going further.

Greetings

Jan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150507/4565f825/attachment.html>