[Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

[Manal Ismail]

Thanks Russ .. I also agree ..
Apologies to have misunderstood your proposal .. I thought you were suggesting that ICG seeks SOs and ACs confirmations instead of CWG's ..
Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:27 PM
To: Russ Housley; Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Agree with Russ on this point
--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Yes, I recognize that this was previously discussed in Buenos Aires.  In the hope of getting a stronger demonstration of consensus, I'd like to see if there is a way to get the chartering SOs and ACs to make such a statement.

Russ


On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Manal Ismail wrote:

Thanks Russ for your email ..
It's a decision that was taken on day 2 of our f2f meeting in BA, attached for your convenience ..
Happy to re-discuss if needed ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal assessment

Manal:

I have been thinking about this part of your assessment:


*         Dependency on CCWG proposal: "The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)".  Worth noting that it was agreed by the ICG at its meeting in Buenos Aires that once CCWG Workstream1 output issent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements.  Hence final transition proposal is pending CWG confirmation that CCWG final proposal meets its requirements.

I do not think that the ICG should ask CWG-Stewardship whether the CCWG-Accountability result meets its requirements.  Instead, it would be much more powerful for the chartering SOs and ACs to state that they have reached consensus  on the CCWG-Accountability result and that they have determined that the CCWG-Accountability result completely meets the requirements set forth in the CWG-Stewardship proposal.  Getting this confirmation from the chartering SOs and ACs seems a more powerful demonstration of consensus for the combined proposal.

Russ
<Mail Attachment.eml>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150716/616f5c53/attachment.html>