[Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions

[joseph alhadeff]

Daniel:

The conditions related to CWG in my mind are as follows:

ICG has assembled a proposal that would be considered complete if the 
dependencies specified by CWG were met.  We await the confirmation by 
CWG that the dependencies have been met as the last hurdle to 
finalization and submission.  If the dependencies are not met and CWG 
was to substantially change its proposal, ICG would need to review such 
changes in light of responsiveness to the RFP, meeting of NTIA criteria 
and  impacts on the combined proposal; that ICG review would dictate any 
further action that might be needed.

Joe

On 10/18/2015 5:58 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> I tried to get recognised just before the break.
> Here is what I was going to raise. Here is a, possibly incomplete, set
> of language that refers to the dependency of the CWG proposal on the
> accountability work:
>
> -------
>
> 47	Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG
> will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met.
> At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it
> considers the names proposal to be complete.
>
> 62	The ICG will seek confirmation that the CCWG final Work Stream 1
> proposal meets the CWG requirements. If the CCWG output does not meet
> the needs as contemplated by the names proposal, the CWG has indicated
> it will revise its proposal. Because of this dependency it is impossible
> for the ICG to conclude its assessment of the accountability mechanisms
> with regards to the names functions at this time.
>
> 104	After the finalization of CCWG Work Stream 1, the ICG will make a
> final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the
> transition proposal. Based on the outcome of the evaluation described
> above, the ICG is planning to recommend that NTIA approve the transition
> proposal.
>
> X013	The ICG has noted that the names proposal is complete on the
> condition that the dependencies on ICANN-level accountability
> mechanisms, currently under development by the Cross Community Working
> Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG), are concluded as
> specified in the names proposal.
>
> X014	Once the CCWG has concluded its work on these mechanisms, the ICG
> will seek confirmation from the CWG that its requirements have been met.
> At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it
> considers the names proposal to be complete.
>
> -----
>
> This has sufficient variation to be confusing.
> I strongly feel that we need to be consistent and as clear as possible
> in what we write about this dependency.
>
> All we have committed to is for the CWG to say that they the
> accountability work meets their requirements. Maybe we should say just
> that and avoid all the variety in this language?
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org