[Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

[Daniel Karrenberg]

If phrasing it like Wolf-Ulrich suggests would get consensus I am all
for it.

Daniel

On 13.01.16 23:05 , WUKnoben wrote:
> I fully agree with Martin.
> 
> The only thing we could ask from the CWG is about the status of their
> dependencies, whether they think these are fulfilled and the proposal
> ready to go. Anything else would be surprising to everybody.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Martin Boyle
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:42 PM
> To: Daniel Karrenberg ; IANA etc etcCoordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> thatwe Submit
> 
> As I noted, the CWG proposal is fully dependent on the CCWG work, and
> that is noted at least by the ccNSO in their acceptance of the CWG
> proposal.  I cannot imagine that the ccNSO would change its view or
> allow the decision on completeness to be made by the ICANN Board.  I am
> worried that a request as you identify it, Daniel, would not help our
> credibility as impartial Coordination Group, without conferring any
> advantage in the process.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: 13 January 2016 21:28
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree that we
> Submit
> 
> 
> During our call I reflected on Jean-Jaques' question whether we should
> (consider to) submit our work product to the ICANN board for
> transmission to NTIA.
> 
> After more reflection I think we should ask our chairs to make an
> inquiry with the CWG chairs if it would be OK with CWG if we did submit.
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> First and foremost such a step would project an element of progress of
> the transition process. From a distance this whole process appears to be
> bogged down because the Internet community cannot agree.  If ICG submits
> we can project that the operational communities in fact agree on a
> substantial part of the *IANA* transition. This whole process may well
> die from the perception of stagnation and complications. Let us create
> the perception of partial agreement and success.
> 
> Secondly if we submit we increase the barrier for re-opening the
> discussion about our work product.
> 
> I am not at all worried that we would give ICANN additional discretion
> by submitting before CCWG does. But we would give them some extra time
> to formally consider our proposal. And that is a third good reason to
> not just sit and wait.
> 
> So I consider it worthwhile to just check whether CWG would consider to
> release us from our obligation to wait for their OK. In case they agree
> we can still discuss what we want to do. If they don't the question moot
> until the situation changes again.
> 
> 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
>