[Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process

Tue Dec 9 13:58:27 UTC 2014

Dear Alisa
I agree with Jean Jacques but suggesting to replace the word "expects "to
"understands "due to the fact that our views is more than an expectation
Regards
Kavouss

2014-12-09 12:21 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Alissa,
>
> with reference to 4e, the ICG has no authority to say what the ICANN Board
> should or should not do. We can only express a wish or a firm expectation.
> Therefore, 4d and 4e should be collapsed into one, and reformulated as
> follows:
>
> "The ICG expects the ICANN Board to send the final proposal to the NTIA
> within 14 days of receipt, without making any changes to the proposal. If
> the ICANN Board were to have an issue with the proposal, the ICG expects
> the ICANN Board would have already shared that with the ICG in a timely
> manner, through the available opportunities of dialogue and public comment.
> In the latter case, the ICG expects the ICANN Board would not modify the
> proposal, but would send it with a letter of transmission to be made
> public."
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> À: "Narelle Clark" <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>
> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>
> Envoyé: Mardi 9 Décembre 2014 10:51:33
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
>
>
>
>
> Alissa,
> I saw a document with several track changes accompanied by you explanatory
> Note .
> Then I asked myself the followings\
> What are these changes ?
> Who made them?
> why they were made?
> WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES?
> if I misunderstood the issue, pls correct me
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark < narelle.clark at accan.org.au > :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed
> to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent
> of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to).
>
>
>
> Why does it need to be referred to here?
>
>
>
> I can see a point in including a piece where we go through a review
> process with the ICANN board on the basis that it is, ultimately, the
> contracted party here.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Narelle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> ] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 2:45 AM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the
> thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week’s call
> or shortly thereafter.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in >
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3
>
>
> Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST
>
>
> To: Paul Wilson < pwilson at apnic.net >
>
>
> Cc: ICG < internal-cg at icann.org >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
>
>
>
> I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I’ve also
> uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and
> includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson < pwilson at apnic.net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in
> dropbox here:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx?dl=0
>
>
> Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown
> in the Excel file here:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0
>
> In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March,
> and a final proposal in June; so I’ve added these extra steps to the
> process.
>
>
>
>
>
> Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, please note I’ve proposed a few substantial additional steps in this
> process:
>
> - A public call for comments on the community proposal development
> processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015); this will allow us to formally gather
> remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which
> produced community proposals.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here.
> RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes,
> level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We
> also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not
> provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG
> forum < http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ > and we’ve been passing
> those on to the communities.
>
>
>
>
>
> The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don’t think we
> want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel
> process that we run ourselves at the same time when we’re expecting the
> communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not
> think it’s appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes
> — if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals
> themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it’s
> not clear what we would do with that information.
>
>
>
>
>
> My edits in the attached reflect this view — I’ve re-combined into a
> single step 1 the ICG’s initial reviews of both process and substance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other
> stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.
>
> - Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the
> process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their
> proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the
> final transition proposal.
>
> - Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting
> with them; rather than mere “transmission” to them.
>
>
>
>
>
> I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above
> items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft
> to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the
> timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don’t think we need
> to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN
> meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets
> discussed (as it should be), so I’d rather not single out any particular
> meetings in this document. And I’m not sure why we would need to
> specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal,
> particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have
> from Kuo.
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking forward to feedback from you and others.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141209/c18a277a/attachment.html>