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