Fwd: Note to CWG re timeline?
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
Hi all, I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing. I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them. 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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance. We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Thanks for your kind efforts However, one IMPORTANT PART of my edits has not been included and that is Your text Quote "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" Unquote My addition /revised text Quote "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 including providing sufficient time( Minimum 21,preferably 30 days tradition ICANN Commenting period for community to comment on CWG outcome " Unquote the addition ( reference to public communing period is crucial as many views were expressed after first CWG Draft dated 01 December 2014 requiring that time for comments ) Regards Kavouss 2015-01-15 16:58 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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, Indeed, as I said, I do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments or the length of public comment periods. That is the prerogative of the CWG, and my understanding is that the CWG received precisely the feedback that you reference from the community and is aware of it. Alissa On Jan 15, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Thanks for your kind efforts However, one IMPORTANT PART of my edits has not been included and that is Your text Quote "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" Unquote My addition /revised text Quote
"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 including providing sufficient time( Minimum 21,preferably 30 days tradition ICANN Commenting period for community to comment on CWG outcome " Unquote the addition ( reference to public communing period is crucial as many views were expressed after first CWG Draft dated 01 December 2014 requiring that time for comments ) Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 16:58 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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, I agree Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Looks good. On 1/15/2015 11:36 AM, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de wrote:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whetherthe 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 <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whetherthe 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a 2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss 2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss: The community has developed its own consultation process, perhaps more than one according to Milton's post. While the time frame you reference seems reasonable, and is established in ICANN, it is for the community to determine what it needs. Alissa's e-mail as phrased does nothing to preclude them from using the time frame you suggest. While I don't think its needed, but in the name of compromise, if we added: "which should include appropriate time for consultation within the community" at the end of the sentence now ending with "completion date", would that address your concern? Joe On 1/15/2015 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whetherthe 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 <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whetherthe 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joe Happy New Year Please read those comments complaining that There overlapping between CCGG and CWG There is insufficient time allowing the community to comments for these sequential changes There is vides that some sort of unnecessary pressure is put on the process from ..... There are views that the approach was changed several time and the process was delayed for months and now at the end we push and push We must feel and be conscious of our responsibilities However, I Agree with the compromise Kavouss as you proposed 2015-01-15 18:12 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Kavouss:
The community has developed its own consultation process, perhaps more than one according to Milton's post. While the time frame you reference seems reasonable, and is established in ICANN, it is for the community to determine what it needs. Alissa's e-mail as phrased does nothing to preclude them from using the time frame you suggest.
While I don't think its needed, but in the name of compromise, if we added: "which should include appropriate time for consultation within the community" at the end of the sentence now ending with "completion date", would that address your concern?
Joe
On 1/15/2015 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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 listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavouss Thanks for your observations. I think the letter from Alissa will help address some of that pressure related to the interim timeline. There is time left to consider the implications to overall timeline later in the process and NTIA has indicated that there is flexibility if time is needed to have a meaningful deliverable that meets the requirements, which includes the need for broad consensus. Business, through ICC-BASIS statements, has previously highlighted the importance of the quality, consensus and workability of the solution as the paramount objectives to ensure the continued security, operational functionality and efficiency of the Internet. I apologize for failing to timely respond to your very kind new years wishes earlier in the year, and wish to you also a happy new year. Joe On 1/15/2015 12:19 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Joe Happy New Year Please read those comments complaining that There overlapping between CCGG and CWG There is insufficient time allowing the community to comments for these sequential changes There is vides that some sort of unnecessary pressure is put on the process from ..... There are views that the approach was changed several time and the process was delayed for months and now at the end we push and push We must feel and be conscious of our responsibilities However, I Agree with the compromise Kavouss as you proposed
2015-01-15 18:12 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>>:
Kavouss:
The community has developed its own consultation process, perhaps more than one according to Milton's post. While the time frame you reference seems reasonable, and is established in ICANN, it is for the community to determine what it needs. Alissa's e-mail as phrased does nothing to preclude them from using the time frame you suggest.
While I don't think its needed, but in the name of compromise, if we added: "which should include appropriate time for consultation within the community" at the end of the sentence now ending with "completion date", would that address your concern?
Joe
On 1/15/2015 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>> *Cc: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whetherthe 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 <mailto: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 indicatethe CWG’s major challenges leading to the revision and whetherthe 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
I will send the note below by 22:00 UTC today. --- 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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance. We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe Happy New Year Please read those comments complaining that There overlapping between CCGG and CWG There is insufficient time allowing the community to comments for these sequential changes There is vides that some sort of unnecessary pressure is put on the process from ..... There are views that the approach was changed several time and the process was delayed for months and now at the end we push and push We must feel and be conscious of our responsibilities However, I Agree with the compromise Kavouss as you proposed
2015-01-15 18:12 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: Kavouss:
The community has developed its own consultation process, perhaps more than one according to Milton's post. While the time frame you reference seems reasonable, and is established in ICANN, it is for the community to determine what it needs. Alissa's e-mail as phrased does nothing to preclude them from using the time frame you suggest.
While I don't think its needed, but in the name of compromise, if we added: "which should include appropriate time for consultation within the community" at the end of the sentence now ending with "completion date", would that address your concern?
Joe
On 1/15/2015 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>: Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Looks good. Lynn On Jan 16, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I will send the note below by 22:00 UTC today.
---
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe Happy New Year Please read those comments complaining that There overlapping between CCGG and CWG There is insufficient time allowing the community to comments for these sequential changes There is vides that some sort of unnecessary pressure is put on the process from ..... There are views that the approach was changed several time and the process was delayed for months and now at the end we push and push We must feel and be conscious of our responsibilities However, I Agree with the compromise Kavouss as you proposed
2015-01-15 18:12 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>: Kavouss:
The community has developed its own consultation process, perhaps more than one according to Milton's post. While the time frame you reference seems reasonable, and is established in ICANN, it is for the community to determine what it needs. Alissa's e-mail as phrased does nothing to preclude them from using the time frame you suggest.
While I don't think its needed, but in the name of compromise, if we added: "which should include appropriate time for consultation within the community" at the end of the sentence now ending with "completion date", would that address your concern?
Joe
On 1/15/2015 11:57 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>: Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, I must say I agree with others that we in ICG should be very careful with referring to whatever process the various groups use before they submit a proposal to us. One of the reasons is that we can simply not know what processes are to be used (even though we might know what ICANN normally use). Another and to me much more important reason is that having support for the proposal is something we should evaluate. We can not risk even remotely we say something, that is then implemented, and then used by someone (including ICG) to say a proposal has not the support it should have. I.e. we can not at this stage mix up our evaluation criteria with us asking for their timeline. Even though the intention is not to be prescriptive. Patrik
On 15 jan 2015, at 11:57, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>>: Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>> Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 Patrik Pls read the exchange of message between me and Joe Pls read comments made by various community on the draft CWG output of 01 December. Pls kindly do not mixed up the situation. They can not meet neither 15 nor. Let us the compromise text goes Kavouss 31 Ja.2015 They need to say when a meaningful results would be available We should not push them as some .....do 2015-01-15 21:33 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>:
Kavouss,
I must say I agree with others that we in ICG should be very careful with referring to whatever process the various groups use before they submit a proposal to us. One of the reasons is that we can simply not know what processes are to be used (even though we might know what ICANN normally use). Another and to me much more important reason is that having support for the proposal is something we should evaluate. We can not risk even remotely we say something, that is then implemented, and then used by someone (including ICG) to say a proposal has not the support it should have.
I.e. we can not at this stage mix up our evaluation criteria with us asking for their timeline. Even though the intention is not to be prescriptive.
Patrik
On 15 jan 2015, at 11:57, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed and at what I have proposed. We must respect those strong position indicating that UNNECESSARY PRESSURE IS put on the process to wind it up prematurely Regards Kavouss
2015-01-15 17:55 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Alissa, We are not dictating .We refer to the standard procedure in ICANN the comments you referred to are limited to the initial draft dated 01 December 2014. There are many comments in the website indicating that sufficient commenting time was not provided. Suppose that they finish by date X and just leave 7 days for comments ( you did the same thing for ICG Charter proving only 7 days for comment which was not sufficient ) . What is the problem to indicate that You may put it as follows At the end pls add. View were expressed a
2015-01-15 17:36 GMT+01:00 <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
I agree
Wolf-Ulrich
Sent from my personal phone
Am 15.01.2015 um 16:58 schrieb Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi all,
I’ve taken a crack at revised text below that tries to incorporate suggestions made on the list, with some editing.
I will note that the message never contained the term “conditional accountability” and so there is no need to either remove it or define it. I think we should keep this note at a high level — we want to know what the CWG’s expected time line is so that we can plan our own work and coordinate it with the rest of the transition planning work accordingly. I also do not think it is appropriate for us to dictate to the group whether or how they solicit public comments, the length of public comment periods, or any other further requirements around coordination or accountability that were not included in the RFP. The RFP explains what our expectations are already and it’s up to the CWG to decide how to meet them.
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. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
On Jan 15, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Patrik Fältström -
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben＠t-online.de