Thanks Alissa for the reminder and the reference ..
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: Alissa Cooper
[mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 7:29 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: WUKnoben; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52
As Narelle pointed out, we ask about this explicitly in
section IV bullet point 5 in our RFP:
"Description of how long the proposals in Section III
are expected to take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may
occur before they are completed."
So we expect the proposal we receive from the CWG to address
this. My understanding is that the bulk of the CWG’s work on RFP section
IV will continue once the group has more clarity on the content of the response
to RFP section III.
Alissa
On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding
implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability
Information Session on
Sun. ..
“AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT
GIVEN THE NEED TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A
FINAL TRANSITION, CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE
EXPECTATIONS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION
OR ANY ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE
PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE. AND I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD
ANSWER THAT, AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE
FACTORED INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR TRANSITION. AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED
IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE
TRANSITION OF THE IANA FUNCTIONS.”
Kind Regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Sunday, February 15,
2015 10:18 AM
To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg]
ICANN52
Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address
Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' ..
I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same
session, but I recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the
co-chairs of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. ..
I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to
have a common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does
this align with NTIA's expectation ..
Kind regards
--Manal
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Friday, February 13,
2015 4:52 AM
To: WUKnoben; internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg]
ICANN52
In my
assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously referring to the
“names and protocols” proposals (see attached). I meant the “numbers and protocols” proposals.
This
is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Dear
colleagues,
my take
from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and
the future ICG related work:
<<
We have received several questions requesting clarification as to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG. We hope the following will be helpful.
NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups. They cannot act on just one. Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG. We are heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both proposals at roughly the same time. When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had already shared with the community during the development of the proposals.
We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner.
With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are definitely open to improvements.
>>
He’s referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the
CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability.
Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline accordingly.
>From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol proposals
delivered in the present version reach this level of readiness. I’d like
to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about. this item and the
potential consequences.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg