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

Thu May 7 22:18:10 UTC 2015

Where would this be covered in the Charter(s)?

el

On 2015-05-07 20:12 , Drazek, Keith wrote:
> I think Paul’s assessment is accurate.
> 
>  
> 
> We, the community, will need to develop and recommend a consolidated
> timeline addressing all of the work-streams and dependencies (CWG, CCWG,
> ICG, ICANN Board, NTIA) to include the implementation phase described by
> Secretary Strickling.
> 
>  
> 
> To begin such an effort, I’d like to suggest a coordination meeting of
> the Co-Chairs of the CWG, CCWG and ICG, plus the ICANN Board liaisons
> from all 3 groups.  Perhaps we should also request clarification from
> NTIA regarding the time needed for their review and approval process,
> based on what they’ve seen so far from the community.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Keith
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 07, 2015 1:37 PM
> *To:* 'Roelof Meijer'; 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
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
> 
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> 
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> 
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> 
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> 
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM
> *To:* Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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 <jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se>
> <mailto:jan.scholte at globalstudies.gu.se>
> 
> *Pour : *
> 
> 	
> 
> Adam Peake <adam.peake at icann.org> <mailto:adam.peake at icann.org>,
> CCWG-Advisors <ccwg-advisors at icann.org> <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150507/91b87063/smime.p7s>