[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[Patrik Fältström]

On 14 Jul 2015, at 4:56, Manal Ismail wrote:

> Don't we want to seek CWG input on this?
> How do they plan to approve the CCWG proposal?

Formally the CCWG proposal is approved when the chartering organizations of the CCWG so approve it. What rules and processes they use each one of them(*), is up to them. Just like the CWG proposal was approved.

It is up to us (ICG) to decide whether what we send in (which is a collection from the three OC) is something we feel can be sent in, and we already do sync with CCWG.

It is my view that it is up to ICG to, in sync with CCWG, ensure that our two proposals, regardless of how independent they are, do create together "the package" that Strickling has been asking for.

Because of this, I think it is up to both us (ICG) and CCWG to ensure that the proposals do not conflict, and the way we do that is to if needed ask CWG for clarifications. It might of course also be that CWG contacts us because of things triggered by the CWG and CCWG coordinating [simply because there are references between the two documents].

   Patrik

(*) SSAC is since one week back a chartering organization of the CCWG.

> Is it just an announcement or is there something that needs to be reflected in their final proposal, edits?/references? By ICG?/CWG?
>
> The names community proposal states:
> " 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."
>
> Does this mean that if everything is implemented the final version stands as it is?
>
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 1:10 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
>
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
>
> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150714/d6e1be66/attachment.asc>