[Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions

[WUKnoben]

I agree, in particular with respect to the inconsistency between 47 and 104

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Daniel Karrenberg
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 11:58 AM
To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
Subject: [Internal-cg] tranistion proposal questions


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