[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Jul 14 17:49:56 UTC 2015


Manal, 

Putting aside the question of approval/confirmation (about which we already have a plan in place), I think you raise a good question about actually editing the CWG proposal text. For example, once the CCWG work stream 1 is done, paragraph 106 of the CWG proposal will be out-of-date. I could imagine that the CWG may want to update that text (and perhaps similar text elsewhere in the document) to reflect the fact that the CCWG produced what they needed (past tense) rather than the expectation that the CCWG would produce what they needed (future tense). But this is not something we’ve discussed with the CWG so we should probably confirm with them when the time comes.

Alissa

On Jul 13, 2015, at 11:49 PM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Patrik ..
> Allow me to further clarify what I wanted to say inline below ..
> Happy to be corrected ..
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:36 AM
> To: Manal Ismail
> Cc: Alissa Cooper; IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> 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.
> 
> [MI]: Agree .. 'Approve' may be a wrong word choice from my side .. I understand that approval will be done by the chartering organizations .. I wanted to say "CWG confirmation (not approval) that the CCWG proposal meets their requirements" .. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> [MI]: Fair point .. but I thought we agreed in BA that once CCWG Workstream1 output is sent to SOs/ACs for approval, that ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements ..
> 
> 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].
> 
> [MI]: I thought that asking the CWG for a confirmation became an agreed step, not an 'if needed' step, but happy to be corrected ..
> 
>   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




More information about the Internal-cg mailing list