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

[Keith Davidson]

Fully agree with Martin et al...

Cheers

Keith

On 14/01/2016 10:42 a.m., Martin Boyle wrote:
> 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
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus