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

[Alissa Cooper]

We have the detailed comments that the CWG submitted just 3 weeks ago to the CCWG that outline exactly how the present CCWG proposal does and does not meet the CWG requirements. The CCWG has not issued a further update to its proposal, so I don’t see value in asking the CWG about the dependencies now. We can read their comments and get a very precise understanding of how they currently view the dependencies.

Alissa

> On Jan 13, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org