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

[Joseph Alhadeff]

While all of us share the concern of the timeframe slipping, we do not 
have a consensus on the appropriateness of ICG sending a letter; I too 
find it outside of our remit.  Perhaps each of the communities we 
represent, if so inclined, should draft those letters as a way for the 
participants to the negotiation to be reminded of the importance of 
timely conclusion.

Joe

On 1/14/2016 3:21 AM, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org