Kavouss and All,
The coast is getting clearer as to the interdependencies in tasks of delivering a complete proposal to NTIA.
 I do not think we misunderstood you Kavouss, I personally  thought you were refering to the output of CCWG to be a direct input to the ICG.  My understanding is that it would be an indirect input through the proposal of the CWG- IANA and l also agree with Alissa's analysis on the ICG's work relative to Steve's statement.

The answers to her two questions are yes, yes. However, it would all depend on when CWG- IANA is able to submit its proposal. Milton captured it correctly as "we do not know yet".
As  the different co-Chairs of the Work Groups continue to coordinate and collaborate, the tasks timelines will be better managed.
Just to be clear, Kavouss, we shall all listen to the song and appreciate the good work of the singer. You are right to the extent of the input coming through the CWG-IANA.
I hope you all arrived safely from Singapore like I did.
Mary Uduma



 




Sent from Samsung tablet



-------- Original message --------
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
Date: 14/02/2015 01:25 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net>
Cc: ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker


Dear All
I am happy that gradually we are convinced that our first assumption that " there is no need  that ICG  receive any input from CCWG on accountability is not valid.
I was sure that we  need such information on accountability indirectly i. e . From CCWG work stream 1 to CWG and from CWG to ICG . However.some ICG member mislead us and disagreed with me .
Now they realised they my statement made verbally at CCWG and ICG calls were right 
Let us be more clear and listen to the SONG and forget the SINGER
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:03, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Alissa for highlighting the timeline aspects. I agree with your conclusions.
>
> In addition, it's worth noting that at ICANN-52, the Chair of the ICANN Board publicly recognized that "When ICANN receives these proposals, we will forward them promptly AND WITHOUT MODIFICATION to NTIA (my emphasis)".  Looking back a few months, when some on the Board were adamant that they had a "right" to modify the Transition plan before sending it on to NTIA, I consider the current Board position to be a significant and welcome change.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>
> À: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>
> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 13 Février 2015 02:05:14
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker
>
>
>
> The statement has been posted here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en
>
>
> I think the first question we should tackle as a group is whether we think this set of expectations as articulated by the Board is reasonable and feasible for the communities and for us to meet. Personally, my answer to both questions is yes. But I’d like to confirm that others feel the same way.
>
>
> If we do think what the Board has set out is reasonable and feasible, then I agree with Joe that we should incorporate this information into our timeline discussion. Under our original timeline that we published in the fall, we would have been roughly in line with what the Board suggests; that is, we were aiming to submit the transition proposal to the Board in July and the CCWG is aiming to submit in June < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150130/efcb6371/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129-0001.pdf >. However, as we know, our timeline was predicated on us receiving all three community proposals sooner than we now know that we will.
>
>
> So if we look at the two alternative timelines I put together last weekend (re-attached here and in Dropbox < https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0 >) — "Original with CWG Dependency" and “Optimized” — I think it’s fairly obvious that there is a good chance of us not being prepared to submit the transition proposal to the Board until after July. Thus, if we adopt either of those as our revised timeline, I think what we would need to do is continue to coordinate closely with the CCWG to ensure that they do not end up submitting their proposal to the Board too far in advance of when we think we will finish (or vice versa). And since we already have good coordination with them, I don’t think much else would need to be done now.
>
>
> I do think it’s important for us to decide on how we’re revising our timeline so that we know the timing of *our* next steps, and so that we can communicate to the IETF and RIR communities about the timing we expect for their next steps while we await the CWG proposal. So I hope folks are looking at the revised timeline proposals and thinking about sending their feedback in the timeline thread on the list.
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 7:13 AM, joseph alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> How would we factor this in the revision to our timeline?
>
> On 2/12/2015 4:40 AM, WUKnoben wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Please find here the statement as read.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> It will also be posted
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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