[Internal-cg] "Implementation"

[Manal Ismail]

I believe ICANN input should be factored in .. The more the input received and the more the coordination efforts exerted, the better and more accurate the results ..
It's clear that the ICG has direct coordination channels with the 3 OCs and an indirect coordination channel with CCWG-Accountability, through CWG-IANA .. 
I think the question now is, should ICG chair/co-chairs (to which the letter was addressed) seek direct input from ICANN or rely on ICANN input being factored in indirectly through feedback provided to CCWG-Accountability/CWG-IANA?

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 5:56 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Implementation"

Dear All
I do not support that view . It may have negative impact as they may say something in contradiction to the OCs Pls kindly id not  take that proposal ICANN is represented in ICG and their views without being directly asked would be considered by ICG when required Regards
Kavouss        

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25 May 2015, at 16:49, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> I think that's a very good idea. Since ICANN may have to modify its bylaws, separate out its IANA department and take other actions, it would be very good to get its own estimate of time required. 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> As ICANN is part of the community, and in the interests of the 
>> strongest possible collaboration on implementation of the community’s final plan.
>> Could I suggest you also submit this request to ICANN. Since ICANN 
>> will have a role in the implementation together with the respective 
>> operational communities, it would be helpful to have its input in 
>> discussions of anticipated timelines. ICANN will be more than happy 
>> to input their view for ICG to consider.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Kuo Wu
>> 
>>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年5月22日 05:37 寫道：
>>> 
>>> Note that we don’t need to do serious wordsmithing here since this 
>>> isn’t
>> text we are sending to the communities. Rather, as long as we agree 
>> on the sense of the questions we want to get input on, then the ICG 
>> reps from the various communities can communicate the questions and 
>> seek input however they so choose. I would expect Jari and myself to 
>> do this for the IETF; Paul and Alan to do it for the RIRs; and 
>> Martin, Milton and Xiaodong to do this for the CWG since they are our 
>> liaisons to that group. I agree that for the CWG we will need an 
>> updated estimate on how long they need to finalize their proposal in addition to the information about implementation.
>>> 
>>> So, if we are agreed on the sense of the questions (I’ve repeated 
>>> the text
>> with Keith’s edits below), we can ask those folks to go out and seek 
>> the input and bring it back to us, preferably before our June 10 call 
>> although I realize the CWG may need a bit more time to give an 
>> answer. Any objections to proceeding?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational
>> communities believe they will need to complete proposal development 
>> and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the 
>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the 
>> expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, 
>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how 
>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to 
>> complete the proposal development and implementation of these aspects?"
>>> 
>>>> On May 21, 2015, at 1:47 AM, joseph alhadeff
>>> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> should the last one be COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT AND
>> NECESSARY IMPLEMENTATION STEPS?
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/21/2015 12:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>> Agree, Keith, but there is a redundant "COMPLETE" in there
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "The ICG is gathering input about how much time the operational
>>>>>> communities believe they will need to COMPLETE PROPOSAL
>> DEVELOPMENT
>>>>>> AND implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the 
>>>>>> communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to 
>>>>>> the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, 
>>>>>> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how 
>>>>>> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to 
>>>>>> complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
>>>>> "complete the COMPLETE PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT".
>>>>> 
>>>>> You got a bit carried away with the global search and replace, 
>>>>> there, Keith ;-(
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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