[Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 15:02:53 UTC 2015
Reply to your questions, concerns have already been addressed and are being refined or complemented by CCWG
Output as stands today and being reviewed by WPs 1 and 2 of CCWG
In detailed fashion
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Jun 2015, at 15:53, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Milton et al - I'm trying to understand the situation better. Are those bylaws
>> changes specified in full detail as a result of the final submission of the
>> CCWG work, or will some further work be required?
> Good question.
> If the CCWG and CWG will draft specific language that the ICANN board only has to adopt, then no further work will be required. (I think - and hope - that that is the base for many things, such as the revised scope and mission statements.)
> If the CCWG and CWG issue instructions that indicate less specifically what ICANN needs to do, then some further work will be required. I can see how, if ICANN is required to translate the instructions of the CCWG/CWG into specific bylaw language, that the community would want a chance to comment on how well it did that. So maybe the process as proposed in Steve's letter is not so bad.
> Based on long experience in this environment, however, I would caution that the community would have to pay very careful attention to the gap between 'policy' as established by the CCWG/CWG, and 'implementation' by ICANN. Just as there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, sometimes the policies established by the community become unrecognizable during the implementation process; the policy can even be undermined.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg