IANA Stewardship Transition: More Time, Work, and Legal Advice Needed

IANA Stewardship Transition, Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions--Chairs’ Statement (pdf)–Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson--after Weekend Sessions 10-11 Jan 2015--Excerpts:

"... The CWG is fully aware of the value of the contribution provided by the comprehensive and thoughtful public comments it received... When originally scheduled, the work weekend was envisaged as a time to finalize the basis of the CWG proposal in order for the proposal to be prepared for submission to the five chartering organizations (ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC) and thereafter, to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA Stewardship Transition process. However, considering the diversity of comments received during the public comment period on the draft proposal, it became apparent to the CWG that more work was needed to review and refine the proposal on the back of these. As such, the weekend’s focus was on further processing of the public comment input and identifying areas of commonality within the CWG, using tools such as polls and surveys.... Looking Ahead--In striving to develop a consensus proposal, the CWG will now need to consider and integrate the outcome of the weekend sessions as well as focus on the critical next steps required. Key next steps include; obtaining legal advice on relevant elements of the proposal and further engagement with the CCWG-Accountability, as well as informing and preparing to seek support from the Chartering Organizations, all of which we recognize will affect the current timeline ..."(emphasis added)

One member's comment to the above: Response to Chairs' Statement - Weekend Sessions 10 & 11 January 2015: "Thank you Jonathan and Lise - I found the week-end to be productive (if not hard to follow at some points) but do fear we are risking making the proposal VERY complicated. May I suggest we return to a simple, efficient and responsive IANA proposal... I also would like to suggest we make very clear to the ICG that their proposed timetable is far too optimistic and that more time will be needed by the Naming Community to develop a proposal that meets "the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services"" (emphasis added)--from a Member of the Cross Working Group on IANA Stewardship Transition- Naming Functions

Sounds a lot like someone read the comments submitted by the editor of Domain Mondo to the CWG draft proposal. Sounds like, at the very least, the CWG is not rushing anymore to meet the ICG's faux timetable deadline.

Domain Mondo archive