Glad we have a happy ending :) !! but couldn't resist noting that: If you are of the view that CCWG-Accountability work is an essential part of the final proposal, great: - Larry Strickling noted this - CWG-IANA is coordinating closely with CCWG-Accountability - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA Names proposal If you are of the view that no direct coordination is needed between ICG and CCWG-Accountability, this is also fine: - There is no direct coordination currently taking place - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA Names proposal Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:22 PM To: Jon Nevett Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates To me it appears that we completely agree that we should not initiate any formal action/coordination at this point in time. ;-) On 20.02.15 14:45 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Great questions for the group. All I am saying is that to many of us these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate would not be conducive to achieving consensus. I agree with Kavouss who said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work. Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Jon,
can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point
in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
Further it would help me to understand your point if you could
speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near future.
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming
community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability. Efforts to avoid the issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in the sand that need not be drawn.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
<daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
"Parallel" lines do not touch. Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for
appropriateness is necessity.
*At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal*
coordination.
Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work
formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions".
Daniel
On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
Daniel:
I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
<Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
From our charter:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside
a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
Best,
Jon
On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>
wrote:
Kavouss,
we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a
valid
CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to NTIA to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates in their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or even its implementation.
You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push CWG in any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that allows us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date they communicated to us.
Daniel
PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons, statements or actions over oblique ones.
Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me that it is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings, while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out. Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be clear while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-) Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear All > It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are in > hurry and push CWG unnecessarily. > Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work > stream 1 of CCWG. > Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is not valid > People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and prudently > Kavouss > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg >> <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: >> >> >> Chairs, >> >> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful. >> >> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in hand >> as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use of >> time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities that >> did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest and >> I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the RIRs >> informed of this. >> >> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time line >> if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a high >> quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be >> implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive such a >> response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I consider it >> important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to work >> as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to do >> so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe this >> will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope. >> >> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial work we >> should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is 100% >> consistent with our earlier stated plans. >> >> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary >> inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process and >> output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific >> operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN >> accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are >> absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work of >> the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output to the >> ICANN board totally independent of our work and output. >> >> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response to >> us, this situation may change and things can potentially become very >> complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this. >> >> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses we >> have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the >> "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's agree >> to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG response >> needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us not >> discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it. >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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