[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