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

Thu Jan 14 07:37:45 UTC 2016

Dear All,
I also agree with Wolf, Martin and Mana
 AS WELL AS WITH aLISSA
rEGARDS
kAVOUSS

2016-01-14 8:18 GMT+01:00 Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160114/5ca4598e/attachment.html>