[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[joseph alhadeff]

Milton:

Agree on the combined timing, but not that they need to be the same 
document.

Joe



On 7/10/2015 5:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> To Martin B:
> I don't get your point, Martin. If the CCWG plan is out of our remit, why would he have sent that letter to ICG and CCWG, but not CWG?
>
> To Joe A.
> What is Work Stream 1? If you go back to the origins of this process, WS1 is all the accountability improvements that MUST be made before the stewardship transition takes place. This logically implies that CWG and WS1 of CCWG are, from NTIA's point of view, part of the same proposal. The transition cannot be made unless CCWG is done and accepted by all parties.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> That was also my understanding.  I think it is also the only reason why Larry
>> Strickling sent his letter about timescales to the ICG and the CCWG, but not
>> to the CWG.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
>> Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: 09 July 2015 20:01
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> NB: It is not within our remit to decide whether CCWG output
>>>> satisfies the CWG's dependencies. That is up to the CWG. Our job is
>>>> to produce a sound
>>> That's precisely why the CWG proposal is not complete until they have
>> seen, reviewed and accepted the final proposal of the CCWG.
>>>> and consistent deliverable with a public record about its
>>>> development. In fact I advise strongly against formally taking note
>>>> of CCWG's output while we do our work. That part is not our job and
>>>> we should not waste time
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally
>> incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal,
>> and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>>
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two
>> separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the
>> ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even
>> necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication
>> between the Board and NTIA.
>>
>> 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