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

[Manal Ismail]

Thanks Daniel for your message .. 
I agree with the collective responses by Martin, Wolf-Ulrich and Alissa .. 
Given the clear dependency between both proposals, we have committed to seek CWG confirmation that their requirements have been met by the CCWG proposal before final submission ..
- this dependency still exists
- there is an ongoing dialogue between the CWG & the CCWG on unmet requirements 
- we have CWG's comments on the CCWG proposal kindly circulated by Keith (I have to admit not reading them yet)
So I don't see any changes that would make us ask the CWG about submitting the proposal to the ICANN board, as we already know dependencies are not yet fully resolved; nor can we ask about the status of the interdependencies yet, until we read/discuss CWG's comments at hand ..

Kind Regards
--Manal 

-----Original Message-----
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:54 AM
To: Daniel Karrenberg
Cc: IANA etc etcCoordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree thatwe Submit

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


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org