On 7.02.15 13:41 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
Does the ICG think that there is a realistic chance to reach the original target date ?
Our plans are currently unchaged. Expect result 6 months after we receive the response from the CWG. Once the ICG receives the CWG proposal, we will look for any opportunities to accelerate our work while ensuring a predictable process and the necessary public consultations.
Has the ICG revised its timeline ? When will this be the case ? Will there be more clarity by the end of the ICANN week ?
ICG is reviewing the timeline, and also communicate with the operational communities, including CWG Names. Whether there will be more clarity by the end of the ICANN week in Singapore is unclear, but there is a possibility there will be.
What is the new target date ?
Earlier estimates said ICG need 6 months in addition to what time the communities require, but that was dependent on all proposals arriving at the same time. The impact on getting the proposals at different points in time has not been evaluated yet.
Has the ICG approached the CWG in order to explore whether the CWG could compress its timeline ? Why not ?
We are communicating with the CWG, but the time they need is to be calculated by them. If the community require more time, the community should use that time, as Secretary Strickling stated <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-str...>
Patrik
Suggested addition: Is the ICG working on the proposals from the communities which it has received so far? Yes, the ICG has started on the evaluation of the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers. We have made considerable progress during our recent meeting and have asked one formal question to both communities so far.