[Internal-cg] [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Timeline for Chartering Org Approval of WS1 Recommendations

[Joseph Alhadeff]

Looking at a middle path between Daniel and Alissa...

Perhaps the way to address the "yes" issue is to to highlight now the 
text changes that would occur in the case of an unqualified yes.  If we 
were to agree on them in advance (with whatever, if any, final review 
may be appropriate by the operational community reps on the combined 
proposal) then the call might be superfluous and we could assure there 
is no delay.  Anything but the CWG's full and unqualified yes across all 
dependencies (for example yes, but...) or the emergence of a new 
unforeseen issue would require a call.  We could still schedule the call 
now and then decide it's not needed...

Best-

Joe

On 2/5/2016 8:59 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> It is hard to predict what will happen in the coming weeks, but perhaps I can explain my thinking better by example. Suppose we ask the CWG to confirm whether or not the CCWG proposal meets the CWG’s requirements prior to ICANN 55 and the answer that we receive is “yes, it does.” In that case we would need to edit the portions of our proposal where we had left highlighted placeholders to reflect this confirmation. For an example of how we might do that, see the attached document (which is just something I had put together on my local machine).
>
> Personally, I would have no problem approving something like the attached for forwarding onto NTIA via the Board via an email approval. But to date I’ve noticed that the ICG (1) prefers to make weighty decisions via teleconference, and (2) likes to get precise agreement about every word we use. So while I personally would happily do the approval via email, I suspect having a call will expedite the approval process. And in any event it’s prudent to schedule a call and then if we try to approve by email and succeed we can always cancel it. I just wanted to get the call on the calendar.
>
> Of course, there are other possibilities than receiving a “yes, it does” answer from the CWG prior to ICANN 55. We might receive that answer later, or we might receive a more detailed answer that we would want to reflect differently in our proposal than what is attached here. Again, I think it is prudent for us to schedule time to approve the precise set of edits we would need to the highlighted placeholders in the document without incurring delay.
>
> Does that clarify?
>
> Best,
> Alissa
>
>
>
>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 1:08 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> Some messages in this thread smelled like preparing for of a change to
>> our already agreed proposal. What other purpose could a formal meeting
>> of ICG have? If that were to occur the resulting delay would be
>> sufficient to sabotage the whole transition 'by delaying it beyond a
>> feasible point for implementation'. No fundamental change, just more delay.
>>
>> NB: In my opinion delaying has been the primary tactic used by both open
>> and clandestine  opponents of the whole thing.
>>
>> Enough said
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On 5.02.16 9:37 , Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>> perturbed by your latest message, I would appreciate your sharing with us your doubt or fear: what last-minute fundamental change could occur which might "sabotage the whole transition"?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jean-Jacques.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
>>> À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 5 Février 2016 08:55:31
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Timeline for Chartering Org Approval of WS1 Recommendations
>>>
>>> Candidly as usual:
>>>
>>> I am smelling that someone is considering to open a discussion to change
>>> our proposal at the last minute.  We all should be clear that ICG cannot
>>> do that without consulting all operational communities again which would
>>> cause a considerable delay. We should project that message.
>>>
>>> Personally I would suspect that anyone proposing a last minute change to
>>> what we have already agreed has no other goal than to sabotage the whole
>>> transition by delaying it beyond a feasible point for implementation.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160205/6c5220bf/attachment.html>