[Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
First of all, I have certain doubt about the newly suggested terms "
Conditional Accountability" which is vague, misleading, legally confusing
.I therefore do not support hat at all.
Secondly, Wolf referred to this term last night and disagreed to that and
wanted to explain my disagreement but there was no time to discuss that.
I fully support the Note initially prepared by Alissa BUT MODIFIED BY ME
as the Alissa first not was incomplete ..
Thirdly. the accountability issue as being discussed at CWG and lack of
clear idea on when it would be completed by them and issued for public
comment providing sufficient time for public to comment ,minimum of 21 days
and then TO BE CHECKED BY CCWG under their  Work Stream 1 as contained in
the Charter  and then comes to ICG.
I have serious difficulties that only accountability relating to Naming
come directly to ICG , after inclusions of comments from public without
being discussed at CCWG under Work Stream TOGETHER WITHACCOUNTABILITY
RELATING TO  NUNBERS and PROTOCOL$ PARAMETERS.
We must do a complete and through accountability for all three issues of
Naming, Numbers, and protocol and parameters..
There seems that some entities are in rush to make things being done
incomplete and half done.
We are not comfortable
Chairs of the Groups need to carefully examine the case and listen to the
public.
There are clear overlap between the tasks being done by CCWG and CWG and
ICG .
Please be careful
Regards
Kavouss


2015-01-15 13:13 GMT+01:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  Hi Kavouss,
>
>
>
> The term conditional accountability has been coined in the CWG-IANA to
> identify the dependence of their work on the CCWG-Accountability.  It sort
> of appeared from the discussions over the high-intensity work weekend to
> mean “conditions of CWG proposal [that] may be conditional on the outcome
> of the CCWG.”
>
>
>
> I’m sure that ICG doesn’t *need* to use the same term, especially if we
> see it as “misleading, vague, ambiguous and unacceptable.”  Nevertheless, I
> do think that it attempts to label an important concept - that the
> names-community proposal might be subject to the ICANN accountability track
> providing certain elements.  However we label that idea, I would not want
> us to lose sight of the linkage between the two areas of work and the
> different timescales that the CCWG-Accountability is working to.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* 15 January 2015 08:46
> *To:* Joseph Alhadeff
> *Cc:* ICG
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability"
> that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term
>
> Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have .
>
> PLEASE AVOID TO INJECT AND PROPOGATE WRONG TERMS
>
> KAVOUSS
>
>
>
> 2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
>
> No objections
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> >
> > Wolf-Ulrich suggested on the call today that we send a note to the CWG
> to obtain more information about their expected timeline if it does indeed
> slip. I’m happy to send such a note if people agree. I’ve drafted something
> up below.
> >
> > What do others think? Should we send a note? What do you think of the
> text below?
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Dear CWG,
> >
> > The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational
> communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions
> about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to
> complete its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission
> date of January 30, 2015. We would ask that if you decide to revise your
> estimated completion date that you share with the ICG your revised expected
> timeline.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150115/cdd1af44/attachment.html>