On 27-Jul-14 08:28, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> "The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a 
> parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.
> While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier
> governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is
> focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA
> functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the
> expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes
> are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately
> coordinate their work."

seems like a reasonable addition, though i would think it would need to
be worded somewhat differently.

> I see there are some people on the CCWG who want to erect a barrier
> between these two processes. Good to see that you and Becky Burr are
> challenging that.

I would put Chuck in that category too.

> Section 3 should contain a reference to the timeline of the ICG and 
> express some intent to coordinate with its requests for proposals
> and its timeline.
> 

well actually i think i am confused on the schedules. The first scheule
we saw, we thought to push back on since it seemed too hurried.  Then I
saw another one which seemed more reasonable.  But I need to go back and
check.  Did you guys come out with one and then revise it?

I think there is going to have to be give and take on schedules (and I
think I heard the same thing from the IETF IANAPLAN meeting)  Yes, we
have to move quickly, but here is only so quickly we can go if we need
to get bottom-up buy in before sending things on.

avri