[Internal-cg] ICG Proposal Submission Expectations (was: Role of the board)

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at lstamour.org
Thu Oct 30 17:55:15 UTC 2014


Hi Paul, Manal,

thank you, very helpful comments.

The initial task was to address the role of ICANN/ICANN Board, following on from the discussion in our last f2f meeting.  However, as we are operating from a base of principles that apply across the Transition process, I believe associating this more broadly would have several benefits:

- emphasize the community aspects of the process, and result in more robust processes at the same time;
- simplify the process overall, and should shorten it;
- be more fully in line with the community's expectations.  

Paul, like you, I also believe it would be helpful for us to be clear about engagement with the NTIA, so would support broadening this to be more clear on that point.    If/once this is agreed by the ICG, then we should update the FAQ to make the various expectations clear and more broadly accessible.  

I corresponded with Joe Alhadeff yesterday as he and Alissa are updating the Proposal Finalization document.  Based on the comments on Wednesday's ICG call, it seems there was support for integrating these two documents and so we have agreed to do that and get a draft back out to the ICG for review.  Finally, I think your preamble below is good and would be a good addition to the ultimate document.

Look forward to hearing from others on the ICG,

Best regards,
Lynn



On Oct 30, 2014, at 12:36 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> Thanks Lynn - great start!
> 
> An observation and question here:
> 
> It seems to me that this set of expectations could apply as much to any interested party as to ICANN; yet as written the document is largely addressed to the issue of ICANN's participation.  This makes sense as a response to the assumption that ICANN will participate in the process in a way which is different from other parties.  So if that’s the intent of this document, then I suggest that the title and preamble should make this purpose clear.
> 
> My question is about NTIA, which is hardly mentioned here; yet in other places (e.g. the timeline) the ICG have expressed the same expectation that NTIA should be tracking (and I assume participating in) the various proposal development processes while they are underway.  So my question is whether this document should address specifically the ICG’s expectations of NTIA as well as ICANN.  It seems to me that it should.
> 
> If so, then a preamble could say something like:
> 
> “In accordance with its charter, the ICG expects to achieve a demonstrated broad and robust consensus on a final IANA transition plan, which is based in the active participation by all interested parties in the various proposal development processes which are now underway.  But because that final plan will be provided to ICANN for transmission to the NTIA, questions have arisen as to whether those parties have any special roles in the proposal development and approval processes.  This document is intended to clarify the ICG’s understandings and expectations of the roles of ICANN and the NTIA, in answer to these questions."
> 
> If on the other hand the NTIA is not to be mentioned in this way in this document, then this draft could be adapted accordingly.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 Oct 2014, at 1:10 pm, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear ICG colleagues,
>> 
>> this memo follows up on the broader task in front of us re defining our requirements and expectations vis a vis the proposal submission process.  It is drafty but given the thread started yesterday by Alissa it seemed helpful to get this out ASAP.    Apologies to Jandyr and Xiaodong for an incomplete consultation.
>> 
>> In our last f2f meeting, there was a discussion on ICANN Board resolution 2014.10.16.16 related to the Cross-Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability & Governance (CCWG Accountability).  That resolution sprang from questions regarding how the ICANN Board will address the consensus recommendations developed through the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.   In our discussion, I believe there was quite strong agreement not to follow a similar process for the IANA Stewardship Transition, but as this is less clear in the minutes it may need further confirmation.  I have tried to address that issue here.  Once there is agreement on the desired process, we will need to ensure there is appropriate awareness and acceptance - from the communities, ICANN and the ICANN Board in particular.
>> 
>> What follows is a train of thought (may not be needed for the final document) and then some recommendations (incorporating text from Alissa's email).   This can clearly be improved upon.
>> 
>> Soooo, train of thought (or operating assumptions?):  
>> 
>> As in all we do, our goal is for the submission to have a broad and robust consensus - from inter alia:  three IANA Function Communities, ICG, ICANN, ICANN Board.  
>> 
>> Given the community's expectations for this process, it is clear that the proposal is to be developed through the communities with the ICG acting as a coordination group.  No additional approval is expected.  This means that all affected or interested parties must participate fully in the various community development processes.    Additionally, the ICG Charter describes quite well the coordination role of the ICG (again per the community's desire); thereby highlighting the necessity for engagement with the communities during the development process as the only acceptable/viable route for impacting the transition plan.
>> 
>> Many of the organizations involved in/impacted by this transition have fiduciary (or fiduciary equivalent) responsibilities.  These will need to be managed by each organization and the development of the transition proposal tracked to ensure no late breaking concerns.  Again, the community was clear that no additional approval is expected prior to submission to NTIA.  [This is because the "policy and oversight responsibilities" for the IANA Functions is done in the three (3) operational communities and not by the IANA Functions Operator.   Those processes determine where their IANA requirements will be "operationalized".]
>> 
>> At the same time, the ICG should proactively reach out and ensure all key parties understand the paths available to them for participation, the associated timelines, and submission process expectations.  This is intended to minimize any misunderstandings or late breaking surprises. 
>> 
>> Finally, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide for input during the development process.
>> 
>> ------------------
>> 
>> ICG's Expectations regarding the proposal submission:    DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
>> 
>> * The ICG expects all interested parties, including ICANN, and the ICANN Board and its members, to follow or participate the operational community processes that are developing the transition plan.
>> 
>> * If concerns arise at the ICANN or ICANN Board level during the transition plan development process, the ICG expects individual Staff or Board members to raise these concerns within the community processes, or, exceptionally, to raise them with the ICG via the ICANN liaisons - during the proposal development.
>> 
>> * As broad and robust consensus is the community's goal, it is imperative that concerns are raised early and with clear statements on the objection(s) and suggestions on how to mediate the concerns.  Again, in this regard, the "ICG Guidelines for Decision Making, approved 17 September 2014, may be a useful guide.
>> 
>> * Public comment periods occur per the ICG Charter and timeline (note to ICG: more specificity may be needed here).   As a matter of good practice, if not courtesy, outreach to ICANN and the ICANN Board should occur here as well.  The purpose would be to ensure full and broad support for the proposal, vs. assuming participation/support.  
>> 
>> * The ICG will post the final proposal on its public web site. 
>> 
>> * The ICG will transmit the final proposal to ICANN.
>> 
>> * The ICG expects ICANN to transmit the proposal unmodified to NTIA and to publish that transmission on its public web site. 
>> 
>> * Should ICANN or the ICANN Board have concerns over their ability to support (and hence transmit) the community's proposal, it is imperative that this be indicated in a timely enough manner in order to allow resolution of any open items within the established timeline.
>> 
>> There is more detail that might usefully be added but hopefully this is enough to begin discussion and permit an agreement in principle. So, please thrash away.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Lynn 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> 



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list