<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a
substantial impact on the ICG proposal". Under 1106 the proposal says:</DIV>
<DIV>"The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly
conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by
the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
(CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship
and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the
CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if
implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship
has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level
accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the
CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require
revision.\u201d</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In other words the combined proposal itself may need to be revised which
may be an ICG task.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I therefore wonder whether it is expedient sending the proposal before a
certain level of assurance is reached that the CCWG can find agreement. The
meeting in Dublin will be a touchstone.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wolf-Ulrich</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- </DIV>
<DIV>From: Paul Wilson </DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:55 AM </DIV>
<DIV>To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group </DIV>
<DIV>Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hi all,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process
</DIV>
<DIV>if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the
</DIV>
<DIV>accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to </DIV>
<DIV>ICANN/NTIA. If that\u2019s the case, do we have a solution for this?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case,
</DIV>
<DIV>before the CCWG completes. If so, then when the CCWG does complete,
it </DIV>
<DIV>is only necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that
</DIV>
<DIV>the final accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to
</DIV>
<DIV>be conveyed formally to all concerned.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as I\u2019m aware, nothing within the CCWG process will have a </DIV>
<DIV>substantial impact on the ICG proposal; the only issue is that the
CCWG </DIV>
<DIV>proposal must be acceptable, before the ICG proposal can be finally </DIV>
<DIV>accepted and approved by NTIA. Therefore we can parallelise these
</DIV>
<DIV>processes to avoid breaking our overall timelines.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Does this work, or have I missed something?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>________________________________________________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>Paul Wilson, Director-General,
APNIC
dg@apnic.net</DIV>
<DIV>http://www.apnic.net
@apnicdg</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>_______________________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>Internal-cg mailing list</DIV>
<DIV>Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</DIV>
<DIV>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>