Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: a.. see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << 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. a.. Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. 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
The term “ready for implementation” needs to be subject to a lot of critical scrutiny. On my way to an airport now but will give it more scrutiny soon. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: * see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << 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. * Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. 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
Dear Milton, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and wise advice. I have raixsed this issue many times and every time I was told by somebody in ICG that for the sake of solidarity I do not name( please refer to my comments at several call and the corresponding transcript) but the answer that was given was. 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. See CCWG CHARTER, Once again sincere thanks to you in razing such a vital question Kavouss 2015-02-12 22:00 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
The term “ready for implementation” needs to be subject to a lot of critical scrutiny.
On my way to an airport now but will give it more scrutiny soon.
--MM
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *WUKnoben *Sent:* Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:10 AM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ICANN52
Dear colleagues,
my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work:
- see *statement from Steve Crocker*, ICANN Board Chair:
<<
*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.
- *Larry Strickling, NTIA* Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation.
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
On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.
My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik
Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.
My view:
There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".
The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.
There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.
Because of that, coordination is needed.
But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.
Patrik
Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups.
Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks.
Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG.
That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun.
We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG.
I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.
My view:
There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".
The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.
There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.
Because of that, coordination is needed.
But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups.
Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks.
Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG.
That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun.
We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG.
I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.
My view:
There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".
The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.
There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.
Because of that, coordination is needed.
But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Milton, YES you are 100% right I fully agree with your analysis but some others like ......insisted that there was no and there is no and there will be no interaction between CCWG and ICG in an indirect manner through CWG as you did correctly mentioned Kavouss . 2015-02-14 2:07 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups.
Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks.
Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG.
That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun.
We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG.
I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.
My view:
There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".
The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.
There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.
Because of that, coordination is needed.
But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
That's exactly how I understand how the community input is processed. And I think other colleagues have the same understanding. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone
Am 14.02.2015 um 02:07 schrieb Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups.
Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks.
Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG.
That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun.
We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG.
I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks.
Regards, Keith
On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
> On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > > 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place.
My view:
There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from".
The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other.
There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs.
Because of that, coordination is needed.
But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do.
Patrik
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Kavouss. If that is your understanding, we are in complete agreement. Thanks for clarifying. Best, Keith From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:08 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se<mailto:paf@frobbit.se>> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Just to confirm that the below conclusion matches my initial understanding too .. Input from CCWG-Accountability work stream 1 will reach the ICG indirectly through the CWG-IANA's proposal on Names, and would hence be covered in the final proposal assembled by the ICG .. Having said that, it's clear that the overall timeline of the ICG depends on the timelines of both interrelated processes, CWG & CCWG .. But I also believe that, with the ongoing close coordination between both groups, CWG & CCWG, the Names proposal submitted to the ICG is expected to be in synch with CCWG WS1 recommendations .. Kind Regards --Manal From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:13 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Thanks Kavouss. If that is your understanding, we are in complete agreement. Thanks for clarifying. Best, Keith From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:08 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: Patrik Fältström; internal-cg@icann.org; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Keith I strongly recommend that no action be taken by co chairs who in fact are the origin of this misunderstanding The situation is clear . ICG will receive input from CCWG indirectly through CWG , the latter will take into account output of Work stream 1 of CCWG No need any intervention of ch chairs at all Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 23:40, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote: Thank you Kavouss. Since this has been a recurring discussion, perhaps our Co-Chairs could send a request for clarification to Dr. Crocker to ensure we're all on the same page. In my mind, it's really a question of formality...the CCWG is not required to submit anything to the ICG, but the ICG may certainly receive input from the CCWG and assess it accordingly. I have no objection to us doing so. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Keith No it does not Report of CCWG work Stream 1 needs to be duly considered by ICG in a direct or indirect manner. Report of CCWG work stream 1 to ICANN may be rejected by ICANN thus if that report on accountability is not reached or considered by ICG the objectives specified by NTIA would not be met. By the way you may be in the same camp of the person that I referred to but you were not the one who said ICG need not any input from CCWG . It was someone else . Any way that statement to which you associate yourself is not correct Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 18:48, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote: Hi Kavouss, I believe you are referring to my previous statements that the ICG is not expected to receive, incorporate or deliver a proposal from the CCWG Accountability. I stand by that statement. I did not say there would be no interaction or input exchanged among the various groups. Technically speaking, the CCWG Accountability will deliver its official report directly to the ICANN Board and not to the ICG. The ICG will only formally coordinate, consolidate and submit the proposals from the 3 operational communities, including from the CWG-Naming. The ICG and CCWG are currently on parallel tracks. Steve Crocker's new comment that the ICANN Board expects the ICG to "take into account the accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG" and that the CCWG and ICG proposals should be coordinated is not inconsistent with my statement. It is a clarifying remark that recognizes the two parallel tracks must be coordinated and informed by one another, and I believe it increases the importance of our work as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG. That said, I expect most of the CCWG and CWG coordination to take place directly between those two groups as has already begun. We will need to watch carefully for any potential conflicts, unnecessary duplication and gaps as the CCWG and CWG conduct their work. As Patrik has noted, "input" can and will be exchanged among the various groups, but does not mean submission and receipt of a formal proposal from the CCWG to the ICG. I hope this helps clarify the intent of my remarks. Regards, Keith On Feb 13, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Patrik Let us not play with words Someone in ICG clearly told that ICG does not expect any input from CCGG work stream 1 I did not agree to that statement now Milton very rightly remind all of us that there is a direct link between ICG and CCWG work stream 1 . Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 13 Feb 2015, at 10:38, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote: On 13 feb 2015, at 09:15, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. My view: There is no contradiction between the two statements. It is all a question on what you mean by "input from". The ICG and CCWG are parallell, so none of the two groups report to each other. There is though [of course] a requirement that there is no contradiction between the two outputs. Because of that, coordination is needed. But for me, that does not imply one group give input to the other, because to me "input to" implies one group report to the other, which I do not think we do. Patrik _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavouss, As I understand it, the CWG-IANA comes up with a consensus transition proposal and the CCWG-Accountability decides what new accountability measures have to be put into place before the proposed transition takes place. Therefore there is an interdependent relationship between the two; but the actual INPUT to our group, the ICG, comes from the CWG-IANA --MM From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 PM To: Milton L Mueller; ccwg-accountability1@icann.org Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Dear Milton, Thank you very much for your thoughtful and wise advice. I have raixsed this issue many times and every time I was told by somebody in ICG that for the sake of solidarity I do not name( please refer to my comments at several call and the corresponding transcript) but the answer that was given was. 'ICG does not expect any input from CCWG .I did severely disagree with that statement but since no one else than me raised that issue I did not raise it again but in CCWG I mentioned that the sole purpose of Work Steam 1 was exactly to provide the accountability required to be in place or committed before transition is take place. See CCWG CHARTER, Once again sincere thanks to you in razing such a vital question Kavouss 2015-02-12 22:00 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: The term “ready for implementation” needs to be subject to a lot of critical scrutiny. On my way to an airport now but will give it more scrutiny soon. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:10 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN52 Dear colleagues, my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship Transition and the future ICG related work: * see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair: << 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. * Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as a whole should be ready for implementation. 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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (7)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Manal Ismail -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de -
WUKnoben