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. Thank you, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
Thank you Alissa. I have no objections to your suggestions and your formulation is good to go. However, what would be the impact on our established timelines if the CWG asks for additional 4 weeks? I participated in the parallel subgroup 3 of the CWG IANA call today, it looks like the group would refresh the process. I am thinking, perhaps, the ICG may consider continuing with assessment of other communities' submissions (Protocol Parameters and Numbers) in line with the agreed finalization process, while waiting for the Names to complete its proposal. The Chair may have to make a public statement regarding the development. Mary Uduma On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: 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. 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
No objections Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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.
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
Dear All, I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability" that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have . PLEASE AVOID TO INJECT AND PROPOGATE WRONG TERMS KAVOUSS 2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
No objections
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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.
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
Hi Kavouss, The term conditional accountability has been coined in the CWG-IANA to identify the dependence of their work on the CCWG-Accountability. It sort of appeared from the discussions over the high-intensity work weekend to mean “conditions of CWG proposal [that] may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG.” I’m sure that ICG doesn’t need to use the same term, especially if we see it as “misleading, vague, ambiguous and unacceptable.” Nevertheless, I do think that it attempts to label an important concept - that the names-community proposal might be subject to the ICANN accountability track providing certain elements. However we label that idea, I would not want us to lose sight of the linkage between the two areas of work and the different timescales that the CCWG-Accountability is working to. Cheers Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 15 January 2015 08:46 To: Joseph Alhadeff Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? Dear All, I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability" that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have . PLEASE AVOID TO INJECT AND PROPOGATE WRONG TERMS KAVOUSS 2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>: No objections Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
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.
Thank you, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ 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
Perhaps we could just use the few words that you used to define conditional accountability to avoid objections or misperceptions? Sent from my iPad
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
The term conditional accountability has been coined in the CWG-IANA to identify the dependence of their work on the CCWG-Accountability. It sort of appeared from the discussions over the high-intensity work weekend to mean “conditions of CWG proposal [that] may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG.”
I’m sure that ICG doesn’t need to use the same term, especially if we see it as “misleading, vague, ambiguous and unacceptable.” Nevertheless, I do think that it attempts to label an important concept - that the names-community proposal might be subject to the ICANN accountability track providing certain elements. However we label that idea, I would not want us to lose sight of the linkage between the two areas of work and the different timescales that the CCWG-Accountability is working to.
Cheers
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: 15 January 2015 08:46 To: Joseph Alhadeff Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
Dear All, I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability" that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have . PLEASE AVOID TO INJECT AND PROPOGATE WRONG TERMS KAVOUSS
2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: No objections
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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.
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
Dear All, First of all, I have certain doubt about the newly suggested terms " Conditional Accountability" which is vague, misleading, legally confusing .I therefore do not support hat at all. Secondly, Wolf referred to this term last night and disagreed to that and wanted to explain my disagreement but there was no time to discuss that. I fully support the Note initially prepared by Alissa BUT MODIFIED BY ME as the Alissa first not was incomplete .. Thirdly. the accountability issue as being discussed at CWG and lack of clear idea on when it would be completed by them and issued for public comment providing sufficient time for public to comment ,minimum of 21 days and then TO BE CHECKED BY CCWG under their Work Stream 1 as contained in the Charter and then comes to ICG. I have serious difficulties that only accountability relating to Naming come directly to ICG , after inclusions of comments from public without being discussed at CCWG under Work Stream TOGETHER WITHACCOUNTABILITY RELATING TO NUNBERS and PROTOCOL$ PARAMETERS. We must do a complete and through accountability for all three issues of Naming, Numbers, and protocol and parameters.. There seems that some entities are in rush to make things being done incomplete and half done. We are not comfortable Chairs of the Groups need to carefully examine the case and listen to the public. There are clear overlap between the tasks being done by CCWG and CWG and ICG . Please be careful Regards Kavouss 2015-01-15 13:13 GMT+01:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>:
Hi Kavouss,
The term conditional accountability has been coined in the CWG-IANA to identify the dependence of their work on the CCWG-Accountability. It sort of appeared from the discussions over the high-intensity work weekend to mean “conditions of CWG proposal [that] may be conditional on the outcome of the CCWG.”
I’m sure that ICG doesn’t *need* to use the same term, especially if we see it as “misleading, vague, ambiguous and unacceptable.” Nevertheless, I do think that it attempts to label an important concept - that the names-community proposal might be subject to the ICANN accountability track providing certain elements. However we label that idea, I would not want us to lose sight of the linkage between the two areas of work and the different timescales that the CCWG-Accountability is working to.
Cheers
Martin
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* 15 January 2015 08:46 *To:* Joseph Alhadeff *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
Dear All,
I strongly disagree to the use of the term " Conditional Accountability" that is a totally misleading, vague , ambiguous and unacceptable term
Either we have the terms and scope of accountability or we do not have .
PLEASE AVOID TO INJECT AND PROPOGATE WRONG TERMS
KAVOUSS
2015-01-15 7:47 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
No objections
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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.
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
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
Hi all, I'm sorry not to have been able to join you on the call yesterday. I'm not quite sure what we hope to achieve from the message to the CWG. I'm not opposed, but what are we going to do with the response? I'm not sure it brings us any further forward other than an admission that the date will slip. Yesterday Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr (co chairs of the CWG-Stewardship) circulated a flowchart showing conditionality of the CWG's work on the CCWG-Accountability track. Was this discussed last night? I certainly see this as an important step in that it proposes an approach that recognises the dependence and shows a way to address it. We should perhaps express willingness to discuss this with the CWG. Thanks Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 15 January 2015 10:27 To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? 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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
First of all I would appreciate this e-mail exchange staying within the ICG only until reaching a conclusion before including others (e.g. CCWG members). Martin, during yesterday’s call I’ve referred to the flowchart you mentioned - and I add it here to put all of as to the same level. I would appreciate to discuss this furtheron. The charts indicates a flow – but no timeline attached to it. For me it says that the workstream 1 (accountability) input to the proposal shall come through the CWG and the CCWG (plus their respective chartering organizations). To learn more about (including timeline implications) is the intention of the note to be sent to the CWG. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Martin Boyle Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:19 PM To: WUKnoben ; Alissa Cooper ; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? Hi all, I’m sorry not to have been able to join you on the call yesterday. I’m not quite sure what we hope to achieve from the message to the CWG. I’m not opposed, but what are we going to do with the response? I’m not sure it brings us any further forward other than an admission that the date will slip. Yesterday Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr (co chairs of the CWG-Stewardship) circulated a flowchart showing conditionality of the CWG’s work on the CCWG-Accountability track. Was this discussed last night? I certainly see this as an important step in that it proposes an approach that recognises the dependence and shows a way to address it. We should perhaps express willingness to discuss this with the CWG. Thanks Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 15 January 2015 10:27 To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline? 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
One of our central obligations is to provide a proposal that gains broad community consensus. If it appears that a community is facing a timing issue on developing community consensus with a need for more time to consult (including due to coordination needs with related topics) I think we need to accommodate them. The sooner we adapt our internal timeline the better we can plan our work towards meeting the ultimate time frame. I would support the continued parallel work in the interim on other proposals. Finally, Alissa, I would support the outreach while stressing the need for continued diligence in working towards deadlines and keeping us regularly informed on progress during the extension. Sent from my iPad
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:51 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
First of all I would appreciate this e-mail exchange staying within the ICG only until reaching a conclusion before including others (e.g. CCWG members).
Martin, during yesterday’s call I’ve referred to the flowchart you mentioned - and I add it here to put all of as to the same level. I would appreciate to discuss this furtheron. The charts indicates a flow – but no timeline attached to it. For me it says that the workstream 1 (accountability) input to the proposal shall come through the CWG and the CCWG (plus their respective chartering organizations). To learn more about (including timeline implications) is the intention of the note to be sent to the CWG.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Martin Boyle Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:19 PM To: WUKnoben ; Alissa Cooper ; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
Hi all,
I’m sorry not to have been able to join you on the call yesterday.
I’m not quite sure what we hope to achieve from the message to the CWG. I’m not opposed, but what are we going to do with the response? I’m not sure it brings us any further forward other than an admission that the date will slip.
Yesterday Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr (co chairs of the CWG-Stewardship) circulated a flowchart showing conditionality of the CWG’s work on the CCWG-Accountability track. Was this discussed last night? I certainly see this as an important step in that it proposes an approach that recognises the dependence and shows a way to address it. We should perhaps express willingness to discuss this with the CWG.
Thanks
Martin
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: 15 January 2015 10:27 To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Note to CWG re timeline?
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 <Link with CCWG Accountability.pdf> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
Mary Uduma -
WUKnoben