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