Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss 2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. 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
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Subject: **Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?* *Date: *January 15, 2015 at 2:50:12 AM PST *To: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Dear All, I suggest the following to be added
1 in the parts proposed by Alissa
"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. In this regard , ICG would appreciate receiving the estimated additional time required enabling CWG to complete its tasks. It is understood that that such an additional time should envisage including sufficient commenting period from the community ( minimum traditional ICANN Commenting period of 21 days ) .The above-mentioned overall additional time required for CWG to complete its works should be formally communicated to ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015 . It is understood that the accountability issue relating to the activities of CWG falling under Work Stream 1 of CCWG needs to be fully coordinated with CCWG before being submitted to ICG at the new /updated deadline . You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here. I do not really understand the meaning of this added sentence by Wolf Kavouss
2015-01-15 11:27 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
a note would be helpful.
With regards to the text I suggest asking the CWG also - in case of time revision - what are the major challenges they encounter (e.g. coordination with CCWG-accountability).
I've tried to insert it in your draft (see below). Please feel free to polish.
Thanks
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:21 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
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. You may also indicate the CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whether the ICG is deemed to coordinate here.
Thank you, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg