Dear All, The deadline of 15 September CAN NIOT MET if we should respect all the required actions including OVERLAPPING between CWG and CCWG and respecting sufficient commenting period from public with at least 30 days of length. The accountability for transition SHOULD STEMS from CCWG Work Stream 1 and not limited to CWG which is exclusively address naming accountability AND in addition there are conflict of approach between CCWG and CWG on the matter Regards KAVOUSS 2015-01-15 17:59 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
If we had one proposal reviewed by Singapore it could be a test of our review process and help flesh out any issues we see in our intake/review process. It would not help us progress very far towards assembling a proposal, but might help us streamline how we review further proposals? Agree though on not jeopardizing the work needed in the names community.
On 1/15/2015 10:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I’ve been looking at the total landscape related to IANA transition and I have a question about the Jan 26 deadline for reviewing the IETF proposal.
There is a ton of work going on in the names CWG and CCWG in that time frame, and given the relatively unfinished state of the names work I think it’s more important to advance that work.
At the same time, I am having trouble understanding what we can do with a review of the protocols proposal by Jan 26. Is the purpose to be able to discuss it at the Singapore meeting, or what?
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg