[Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals

[WUKnoben]

I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a substantial impact on the ICG proposal". Under 1106 the proposal says:
"The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-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.”

In other words the combined proposal itself may need to be revised which may be an ICG task.

I therefore wonder whether it is expedient sending the proposal before a certain level of assurance is reached that the CCWG can find agreement. The meeting in Dublin will be a touchstone.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Paul Wilson 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 6:55 AM 
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals 

Hi all,

My understanding is that we have a timing problem with the CCWG process 
if another full public comment cycle is needed before completion of the 
accountability proposal, and if we wait for that before we submit to 
ICANN/NTIA.  If that’s the case, do we have a solution for this?

I hope that the ICG proposal can be finalised and submitted in any case, 
before the CCWG completes.  If so, then when the CCWG does complete, it 
is only necessary for the 3 communities (primarily CWG) to confirm that 
the final accountability solution is acceptable to them, and for that to 
be conveyed formally to all concerned.

As far as I’m aware, nothing within the CCWG process will have a 
substantial impact on the ICG proposal;  the only issue is that the CCWG 
proposal must be acceptable, before the ICG proposal can be finally 
accepted and approved by NTIA.  Therefore we can parallelise these 
processes to avoid breaking our overall timelines.

Does this work, or have I missed something?

Paul.



________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151016/96a0f312/attachment.html>