[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,

thanks for this.

I was told they wanted to meet with us and we had rejected the offer.
I understand they are meeting with GAC and ALAC.  Not the whole group,
but part.

I am confused.

avri


On 24-Sep-14 13:36, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> 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