From: Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr

Sent: 30 January 2015

To: Alissa Cooper, Patrik Faltstrom; Mohammed Bashir

Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Timetable – Best Case Estimate

 

Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleagues,

 

Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some

more detail.

 

Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to

respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of

31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has

involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work

required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key

dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a

three key points:

 

1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily

mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs.

2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work,

not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves.

3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and

the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.

 

Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide

a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case

seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be

signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with

the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas

of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity

periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting

of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable

and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on

the diagram. They include but are not limited to:

 

A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal

B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific

content of any such advice

B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the

outcome of the work of the CWG

 

Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the

support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely

fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that

we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit

target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may

not be achievable.

 

We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to

work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of

and engaged in our progress to that end.

 

Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr

 

Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG

correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with

the current timetable of the ICG