[CWG-DT-Stewardship] FW: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming related functions and the work of the ICG

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Are we meeting with the ICG in LA?

avri


On 24-Sep-14 10:24, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> All.
> 
>  
> 
> Please see below.
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com] 
> Sent: 24 September 2014 15:01
> To: 'alissa at cooperw.in'; 'mbashir at mbash.net'; 'Patrik Falstrom -'
> Cc: Byron Holland (byron.holland at cira.ca); 'wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de';
> 'Milton Mueller -'; 'James Bladel -'; 'Keith Drazek -'; 'Jon Nevett -';
> 'mnuduma at yahoo.com'; Martin Boyle (martin.boyle at nominet.org.uk); 'Xiaodong
> Lee:'; 'keith at internetnz.net.nz'
> Subject: CWG to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition proposal on naming
> related functions and the work of the ICG
> Importance: High
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed,
> 
>  
> 
> We are taking this opportunity to write you, given our previous roles as
> co-chairs of the of the drafting team that prepared the charter for the
> Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship
> Transition proposal on naming related functions. We want to update you on
> the progress we have made and make one important comment on the timelines
> set out in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for
> Proposals (RFP) published on September 8 2014.
> 
>  
> 
> We in the naming community have followed the historic IANA transition
> process very closely. Mindful of the challenging timelines inherent in the
> process, we have moved very quickly to come together as a naming community.
> At ICANN 50 in London in June 2014, the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and the SSAC came
> together to establish a drafting team to prepare a charter for what will
> become the CWG. Through frequent meetings, we were pleased to be able to
> finalise a charter for the CWG by mid-August 2014. The charter has been
> approved by the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and SSAC, each in accordance with its own
> rules and procedures, and we are now calling for volunteers as members and
> observers, again according to each SO and AC's rules and procedures. In
> addition, the GAC has been invited to participate in the CWG and is actively
> considering the invitation. With the establishment of the CWG, we expect to
> be able to provide a proposal from the naming community.
> 
>  
> 
> While we believe that we have made a good start, ensuring the engagement of
> such a broad community in such an important and overarching exercise is
> necessarily time consuming.  Even though many of the chartering SO/AC's have
> yet to complete their procedures for selecting working group members, we
> have nevertheless decided to move forward and schedule our first CWG meeting
> right before (as well as a second meeting during) ICANN 51 in Los Angeles.
> After this initial F2F meeting, we may not have another opportunity to meet
> face to face until ICANN 52 in February. We would not anticipate that the
> CWG itself could approve a transition proposal without at least one such
> face to face meeting and potentially a public consultation of the community.
> Please also be aware  that before a proposal could be formally transmitted
> to the ICG, it will also be necessary for the chartering SO/AC's to approve
> it through their respective processes.  
> 
>  
> 
> Therefore, while we intend to urge that the CWG devote considerable time and
> energy to developing a proposal, it will be quite challenging, some would
> say impossible, to meet the January 15, 2015 target deadline for formal
> proposals set out in the ICG's RFP. We do hope that shortly upon formation
> of the CWG we will be able to come back to you with a proposed timetable. It
> follows that the CWG will not be in a position to review the RFP or request
> any clarifications by the deadline of 24 September, but hopefully you are
> willing to accommodate any questions that the CWG may have following its
> formation.
> 
>  
> 
> The CWG's charter provides for a very open process, including no limitations
> on observers (regardless of affiliation) at any of our meetings. We have no
> doubt that the naming community members on the ICG will actively monitor the
> work of our CWG and provide the ICG with regular updates on our progress.
> Should you have any questions or require further clarification, we would be
> pleased hear from you and to respond accordingly. 
> 
>  
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan Robinson & Byron Holland
> 
> Co-Chairs
> 
> Drafting Team of the Charter for a CWG to develop an IANA stewardship
> transition proposal
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
>