[Internal-cg] ICANN52

[Patrik Fältström]

> On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.

My view:

There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".

The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.

There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.

Because of that, coordination is needed.

But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.

   Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150213/690475aa/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150213/690475aa/signature.asc>