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

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Sat Feb 6 17:09:00 UTC 2016

Thanks Alissa .. Again this make perfect sense to me ..
And as mentioned by you and other colleagues, anything we agree that we don't need can still be canceled ..

Kind Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 3:59 PM
To: Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] [CCWG-ACCT] Update on Timeline for Chartering Org Approval of WS1 Recommendations[WARNING: ATTACHMENT UNSCANNED]


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?


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list