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@icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 1:37 PM
To:
'Roelof Meijer'; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr;
accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Cc: 'Lise
Fuhr'
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-Advisors] CCWG near
final draft proposal
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@redbranchconsulting.com
O:
+1 (202) 547-0660
M:
+1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739
Skype:
paul.rosenzweig1066
From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl]
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@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@afnic.fr>
Reply-To:
Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>
Date:
dinsdag 5 mei 2015 11:13
To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
<accountability-cross-community@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 mailto:jan.scholte@globalstudies.gu.se |
|
Pour :
|
Adam Peake mailto:adam.peake@icann.org,
CCWG-Advisors mailto:ccwg-advisors@icann.org |
Dear AllAttached 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.GreetingsJan