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

[Grace Abuhamad]

There is no meeting planned.

Based on one of their last calls, my understanding is that the ICG is not
meeting separately with any groups in LA.

On 9/24/14 12:33 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>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
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dt-stewardship/attachments/20140924/ddb8887a/smime-0001.p7s>