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

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Making such statements is clearly outside our mandate as a coordination
group. It is up to the operational communities who contributed input to
us to make such statements. It may also be up to the bodies who sent us
as individuals. But it is certainly not up to us.

Besides it being clearly outside our mandate I also do not see any
reason for us to do so and any way this would influence the course of
events either.

Daniel

On 14.01.16 9:21 , WUKnoben wrote:
> I understand this being independent from the question whether we should
> send a note to CCWG (and board (and NTIA)) - as Jari suggested -
> appealing for a timely compromise solution.
> 
> I'm supporting this idea which would also signal that we're not just
> waiting (or even worse being in "sleeping mode") rather than closely
> following the debate and that ICG is deeply interested in the overall
> success of the transition.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Enquire if CWG(-Stewardship) Would Agree
> thatwe Submit
> 
> OK. There is obviously no chance for consensus to move ahead and thus we
> continue to wait as agreed previously. At least we now have on record
> that we considered alternatives.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 13.01.16 23:53 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 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
>