Hi, I wonder with the fairly balanced and stable impasse we seem to have between internal and external models , how are we going to reach consensus. In some ways as we move toward a center point, the proposals become more or less similar except for the dividing line of internal or external. What sort of judgement will be required to decide which side of the line our solution will falls? At what point will we decide a vote is required? I do not personally favor a vote, but I also do not see great movement from one type of solution to the other. At some point we will need to decide either way. With the exception of a possible hybrid proposal that somehow manages to satisfy the urges of the inside model people and the outside model people, I do not see how we resolve this outside of a vote. Unfortunately I do not see such a proposal as being allowed by either side of this issue. Perhaps we should wait for the legal advice, but I am not sure why as both sides include many of the same legal elements. But I think we should ready ourselves for that vote. avri On 30-Jan-15 08:37, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,
Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some more detail.
Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a three key points:
1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs. 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work, not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves. 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.
Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on the diagram. They include but are not limited to:
A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific content of any such advice B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the outcome of the work of the CWG
Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may not be achievable.
We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of and engaged in our progress to that end.
Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with the current timetable of the ICG
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG
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 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship