[Internal-cg] Timing of ICG/CCWG proposals

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Fri Oct 16 21:07:02 UTC 2015


Thanks Wolf-Ulrich.

On 16 Oct 2015, at 16:43, WUKnoben wrote:
> I'm not that sure that "nothing within the CCWG process will have a 
> substantial impact on the ICG proposal".

Indeed, if there are substantial impacts then the plan fails;  however 
if the outcome of the CCWG process is simply a “go/no-go” from the 
communities, then that message can come after the ICG proposal has been 
finished and submitted.

> 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.

I agree.  But what I am doing with this proposal is to put a contingency 
plan on the table which may be useful under certain circumstances.

Thanks,

Paul.



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list