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

[Rudolph Daniel]

Hi
I see no miss interpretation in the letter, 30th Sept. was never stated
deadline.
And common sense days that there must be implementations prior to contract
end.
RD
 On May 7, 2015 11:18 AM, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> wrote:

>   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>
> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Date: dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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 <jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se>
> <jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se>  Pour : Adam Peake
> <adam.peake at icann.org> <adam.peake at icann.org>, CCWG-Advisors
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150507/2063dfb8/attachment.html>