[CWG-Stewardship] Email from CCWG on potential areas of overlap

[Greg Shatan]

I think the timing of "mid-January" chosen by the CCWG to respond on areas
of "overlap" is (or could be) rather unfortunate.  That is an indistinct
timeframe.  If we could have their input prior to our "high intensity work
weekend" that would be really useful.  On the other hand, if we don't have
it until after our report goes out to the community, it will be essentially
useless in this stage of our work, and a significant opportunity for real
coordination will have been lost.  I encourage the chairs to continue this
dialogue in order to maximize the value of the CCWG's response, even if it
means putting some pressure on the CCWG to synchronize better with our
timeline.

Greg

On Monday, December 22, 2014, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Jonathan and I have received this email from the CCWG Co-Chairs, and we
> would like to share it with the group to keep you updated on the
> coordination with the Accountability CCWG.
>
> Happy holidays
> Best regards,
>
> Jonathan and Lise
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Rickert
> Sent: 19 December 2014 15:36
> To: Lise Fuhr; Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: Mathieu Weill; Marika Konings; Grace Abuhamad; Bart Boswinkel; Adam
> Peake; Berry Cobb
> Subject: potential areas of overlap
>
> Dear Lise and Jonathan,
> first of all, let us thank you for taking the time earlier today to hold
> another co-ordination call between the co-chairs of the CWG and CCWG. As an
> efficient liaison of our groups is key to our groups work’s success, we
> really do appreciate your commitment to having regular - usually weekly -
> calls.
>
> It was with great interest that we read the document you provided titled
> „Potential areas for Overlap between the CWG & the CCWG“. We have shared
> this with our group and discussed your paper with the group during our last
> telephone conference. Rest assured that your input will be reviewed and
> responded to as a priority issue. We are also working on both identifying
> accountability issues and categorizing as to whether they belong to work
> stream 1, work stream 2 or both. Further, we do categorize items that need
> to be completed prior to the transition versus those that need to be
> committed to.
>
> However, we are cognizant that any preliminary assessment that we might
> come up with is subject to change because of
>
> - changes made to the proposal you published on Dec.1st, 2014
> - changes made to your document on areas of overlap
> - new proposals and
> - changes due to other external and internal factors, such as evolving
> deliberations of our group.
>
> We are aiming at providing you with a preliminary response in the second
> half of January, but will update you on progress and interim results in the
> meantime. Our work is now split into 4 sub groups working in parallel with
> lively discussions on the mailing lists and weekly two hour calls, which we
> are continuing to have during the holiday season to advance the project as
> expediently as possible.
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mathieu Weill and Thomas Rickert
> CCWG Co-Chairs
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:;>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141222/0e5a8638/attachment.html>