hi, I was new to the group today and that seemed to be a decsion that had already been made. But I don't understand it. Has the ASO refused to participate? Since the NRO and the ASO each have representatives, I am assuming that they are not one and the same. So perhaps there are issues of ICANN's relationship to this whole thing that they may be interested in. It does not seem reasonable to me to give up the idea of a CCWG that works on the entire ICANN aspect of the transition and that includes at least possibly, all ACSO. I tend to think there may be issues that are larger than just names among the ICANN aspects of this transition. But of course if the ASO and others have all said, no, no way, not even interested in looking at your charter, then ok. Otherwise, I would like to understand better. thanks avri
I haven¹t heard that anyone refused to participate. I think the expectation is that the numbers and protocols folks are running their own parallel processes. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 7/14/14, 4:32 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
I was new to the group today and that seemed to be a decsion that had already been made. But I don't understand it.
Has the ASO refused to participate? Since the NRO and the ASO each have representatives, I am assuming that they are not one and the same. So perhaps there are issues of ICANN's relationship to this whole thing that they may be interested in.
It does not seem reasonable to me to give up the idea of a CCWG that works on the entire ICANN aspect of the transition and that includes at least possibly, all ACSO. I tend to think there may be issues that are larger than just names among the ICANN aspects of this transition.
But of course if the ASO and others have all said, no, no way, not even interested in looking at your charter, then ok. Otherwise, I would like to understand better.
thanks
avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/li stinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11wfJS XOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=gEjwjvZb3tB8hBp8oqF39jGnyWY%2Bju mBBpiURUU7%2Fj0%3D%0A&s=9d292571c7dc07aaecd7faad77373c8296600fb3ab95d74b79 37d58de2b37edd
But that doesn't stop us sharing our work with any group or organisation, directly and/or via the co-ordinating group. And, moreover, making it clear that input at our meetings or by any other means is welcome. Perhaps we should make sure that this open approach is reflected in the charter? Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: 14 July 2014 21:38 To: Avri Doria; CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Question of Names only group? I haven¹t heard that anyone refused to participate. I think the expectation is that the numbers and protocols folks are running their own parallel processes. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 7/14/14, 4:32 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
I was new to the group today and that seemed to be a decsion that had already been made. But I don't understand it.
Has the ASO refused to participate? Since the NRO and the ASO each have representatives, I am assuming that they are not one and the same. So perhaps there are issues of ICANN's relationship to this whole thing that they may be interested in.
It does not seem reasonable to me to give up the idea of a CCWG that works on the entire ICANN aspect of the transition and that includes at least possibly, all ACSO. I tend to think there may be issues that are larger than just names among the ICANN aspects of this transition.
But of course if the ASO and others have all said, no, no way, not even interested in looking at your charter, then ok. Otherwise, I would like to understand better.
thanks
avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman /li stinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship&k=lQ50IrZ4n2wmPbDBDzKBYw%3D%3D%0A&r=1J%2BU11w fJS XOLgU2NzyyPtxJzuvGV4bYQHowOGDBoZw%3D%0A&m=gEjwjvZb3tB8hBp8oqF39jGnyWY%2 Bju mBBpiURUU7%2Fj0%3D%0A&s=9d292571c7dc07aaecd7faad77373c8296600fb3ab95d74 b79 37d58de2b37edd
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Jonathan Robinson