[Internal-cg] Timeline

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Sun Jul 20 09:03:04 UTC 2014


In the end the timeline must be realistic.

But since at least the g-names community is still "under construction" 
here - the CCWG charter is supposed to be ready after 4 weeks from now! - we 
should start with the "conditioned" timeline (achieve the goal of handing 
the proposal over to NTIA a reasonible time before 30 Sep 2015) and make the 
conditions transparent.

I agree with Milton that due to the GNSO process early Feb 2015 will be 
highly challenging but will refer immediately to the Commercial Stakeholder 
Group (CSG) and copy Jonathan Robinson in as CCWG co-chair in order to get 
more realistic views until end of July.

+1 to shrinking NTIA timeline.

Decision:    Is the aggressive schedule being met? – by 2 Feb 2015.   That 
should be a nice weekend! :-)

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Patrik Fältström
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:47 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline

We need realistic timelines, not optimistic.

Count backwards regarding time needed inside ICANN organizations to reach 
consensus. I don't know gnso process. I know SSAC process.

I agree we shod shrink NTIA time although we should recognize their time 
(whatever that is, we shod ask them).

   Patrik

> On 20 jul 2014, at 02:03, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Colleagues:
> i don't recall the part of the discussion yesterday where we came to the 
> conclusion that the names communities would be able to come up with a 
> proposal by early February. It seems unrealistic. We will be lucky to get 
> something from them by mid-March.
>
> While we are giving the DNS part too little time, we seem to be giving the 
> NTIA too much time. The NTIA has the comparatively simple task of 
> determining whether a complete proposal a) has consensus, b) meets its 
> criteria. I don't see how that takes 3 months. Furthermore, if the NTIA 
> needs more time beyond the Sept deadline it can extend its contract for a 
> month, two or three. No hard constraint there.
>
> I of course understand the need to set aggressive goals and also 
> understand that work tends to expand to fill out allotted time, so  I ask 
> for comment by the others from the GNSO - knowing what you know about how 
> the Council and other WGs in GNSO or CCWGs work, do you think it is 
> realistic to ask for a complete consensus proposal from the GNSO, CCNSO 
> and GAC by early February?
> ________________________________________
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org <internal-cg-bounces at icann.org> on 
> behalf of Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:56 AM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline
>
> Russ, thanks.
>
> Here’s a version with suggested changes I tried to describe.
>
> Paul.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg 




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list