[Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final

[Manal Ismail]

Thank you all ..

I'm fine with the letter .. I'm also attaching CCWG's response to the NTIA as shared on the CCWG mailing list .. I don't see discrepancy, apart from the minor difference highlighted in capital letters in the excerpts below .. 

CCWG Response:
"CCWG-Accountability will aim to get that final proposal to our chartering organizations by October, hoping to receive their approvals by the conclusion of the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin in late October. If all goes as planned, we could submit our final proposal to the ICANN Board by NOVEMBER, along with bylaws changes that are ready for adoption by the Board."

ICG Response:
"The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to NTIA via the ICANN Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in OCTOBER."

If our unit is month then late October or early November may not be an issue .. 

On the other hand, if I read the last sentence correctly, I think it needs to be slightly modified as highlighted in capital below:
"This would imply that at the earliest the transition could BE completeD in the July 2016 time frame."

Hope you find this useful ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 5:11 PM
To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Response to NTIA - final

FWIW, we chairs (specifically Alissa) have been in close contact with CCWG chairs when working on development of this note. We as chairs have sent comments to each other regarding wording so that, as you say, we do reach a situation where our respective notes are in congruence.

That said, we are two separate groups, and have different charters, so two different responses are both natural and in order.

Your explicit request that congruence is required is noted.

   Patrik

On 3 Jul 2015, at 16:11, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:

> I also agree. Shouldn't congruence be seen with the CCWG response to the NTIA?
>
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Sent from my personal phone
>
>> Am 03.07.2015 um 18:18 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>>
>> I support this response as long as it is congruent with the CWG response.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>> On 2.07.15 22:51 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> The attached version of the NTIA response contains edits to reflect our F2F discussion. It also has the placeholder filled in that references the CCWG response.
>>>
>>> I plan to send this after 23:59 UTC on July 5 unless I hear objections.
>>>
>>> Alissa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG_NTIA_reply.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51408 bytes
Desc: CCWG_NTIA_reply.pdf
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150703/738b1fe9/attachment.pdf>