<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Patrik</div><div>Chartering organisation formal comments are foreseen to be available after 21 January 2016.</div><div>They can not and should not be forced to make any formal comments before they received the compiled publci cooments schedules to be avaiable after 07.01.2016</div><div>However, any chartering organisation or any member of these organisations are free to submit informal or formal comments ,if they so wish.</div><div>However, it was mentioned by several people at CCWG CALLS AND BY E-MAILS that is is unusal that chartering organisations be expected to submit formal comments before they examine public comments</div><div>The discussion on CCWG is blocked.</div><div>There are several sporadic e-mail exchange on some issues .</div><div>As far as the Board's comments are concerned the discussion concentrated on Missions statement and ...</div><div>But there is no formal discussion on the Board comments as such.</div><div>Becky, Burr, the chair of WP 2 has announced her resignation.</div><div>The chairs or co chairs of CCWG took silent positions.</div><div>We are approaching the deadlines.</div><div>Co chairs of CCWG formally announced that they would take the Board's comments as any other comments from public.</div><div>I do not agree with that for the simple reasons that the Board should finally approve CCWG Recommendations.</div><div>In my view, it is more appropèriate that CCWG involved in serious and logical discussions with Bioard.</div><div>The situation become critical.</div><div>I sent an informal Note to Steve and Fadi to encourage then to be engaged in the discussion as soon as possible and I got an informal warm reply.</div><div>I did also send an informal message to the Co chairs of CCWG and ask then to be more mindful .I got a cold and dry , perhaps disappointing reply.</div><div>I did send them again another informal message and once again encourage them to take the leadership on the heavy but exchage of e.-maiils on some issues of the Board's comments , but not all, which is being held in sporadic manner</div><div>This is my progressive report as ICG Liaison at CCWG.</div><div>I am not comfortable with the progess of the last piece of the work.</div><div>It is possible to acheive some sort of agreement with the Board.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-12-19 20:25 GMT+01:00 Patrik Fältström <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paf@frobbit.se" target="_blank">paf@frobbit.se</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 19 Dec 2015, at 20:16, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dear Alissa and Co-chairs/ Vice Chairs<br>
> What is the agenda?<br>
<br>
</span>We have no agenda yet. We are watching the CCWG process, and we are in close contact with the CCWG chairs.<br>
<br>
Given the discussion around the Board Submission last week, we envisioned the responses from the chartering organizations and reactions from the operational communities might very well require a discussion in ICG.<br>
<br>
We discussed whether we should wait until say a week after Dec 21 to see what the situation is, but, due to the holidays of various kinds in the world between now and early January we decided to schedule a call now, while ICG members do read email.<br>
<br>
If we on short notice do not see the need for a call, we can cancel.<br>
<span><br>
> By the way, have you envisaged to have an ICG meeting during ,before,after ICANN 55<br>
<br>
</span>No, we have not planned any such meeting. Neither at, nor around ICANN 55.<br>
<br>
Regards, Patrik<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>