[Internal-cg] Revised ICG timeline
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Feb 2 22:14:46 UTC 2015
While we are in agreement, and as BASIS have formally stated, that the quality of the consensus proposal and its ability to assure the continued security, operation and efficiency of the Internet is more important than it's timing, we are also mindful that finishing on time would be the most desirable outcome if we can do so with the needed consultations, consensus and quality outcome. Let us allow events to unfold and react as needed in the course of the events to assure a quality and consensus outcome that meets all of the NTIA conditions.
----- Original Message -----
From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
To: alissa at cooperw.in
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 4:11:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised ICG timeline
Please be aware that NO ONE SHOULD PUSH PRESUURE TO MAKE " VITE FAIT,MAL FAIT"
NTIA CONTRACT B IS REQUZIRED TO BE EXTENDED. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL.
Please read the statement of Lrry, in which he reiterate that accountability must be in place, included in the Bylaw and Article of incorporation before transition takes place.
2015-02-02 21:14 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > :
I’ve taken a first stab at revising the ICG timeline (attached and in Dropbox at < https://www.dropbox.com/s/99nrslw6czblvio/TimelineGraphic-v6.xlsx?dl=0 >). Inspired by the timetable we received from the CWG < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-January/002784.html >, I’ve called it “Best Case Timeline.” The portion showing CWG proposal development is aligned with what we received from the CWG, and the steps after that are contingent upon when we received the names proposal from them. Our current timeline graphic is available at < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-graphic-10sep14-en.xlsx >.
Couple of overall comments:
(1) The timeline envisions that the bulk of our ICG time between now and June will be spent getting the IETF and RIR proposal components as final as possible in advance of our receipt of the names proposal from the CWG.
(2) All of the engagement of the operational communities in reaction to our Step I and Step II assessment processes are listed with the “if necessary” caveat. We need to build in time in case we have questions we need to send back to the communities, and we need to give them time to address those questions, but it’s also possible that we will not have questions and therefore the built-in time will not be necessary.
(3) In our proposal assembly and finalization process, we envisioned running two public comment periods after having assembled a complete proposal. This timeline suggests running a single public comment process instead. Given that the CWG will have run multiple public comment periods on the names piece of the proposal, and the IETF and RIR proposal components will have been quite stable and thoroughly vetted for many months by the time we can run a public comment process on the complete proposal, I think a single public comment process should be sufficient. This will also allow us to complete our work within two ICANN meeting cycles after our receipt of the names proposal.
(4) I’ve tried to take into account the timing of future ICANN meetings as well as the impact of holiday periods in putting this together.
(5) The timeline envisions us transmitting the final proposal to the ICANN Board for submission to NTIA in March 2016. This assumes that the current NTIA contract will have been sufficiently extended beyond September 2015. If it does not get extended, of course we will have to re-evaluate not just the timeline but our work on the transition more broadly at that time.
It would be great to discussion about this going on the mailing list this week. I think we should reserve 90 minutes to discuss at our face-to-face meeting, with another 45 minutes or so of parking lot time in case we want to come back to it after the initial discussion.
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg