[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 8 15:26:36 UTC 2015
It seems to me that some people are pushing to squeeze all actions and
ignore the fact that in section III of our charter we have stated that Quote
"The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different
components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets
the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole
fits together. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that
achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this
proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for
reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or
critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine
whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the
coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA."
We have no right to modify the Charter.
There must be some degree of stability .If someone does not care of the
basic principle that charter must be respected other are very concerned
about disintegrating elements which should be fully intergrated.
We may receive the report /proposal from Naming Community by 15 June 2015
.In that case your timeline is inconsistent with reality
I am not therefore clear about your updated timeline.
It is easy to play with the timeline as one wishes but if it does not match
to the critical path Diagram , such update may not be meaningful.
Pls kindly maintain your version 6 until we carefully discuss the impact of
the proposal from Naming Community on our work
There are considerable activities on the whole process and we need to use
our limited time efficiently
2015-02-08 9:11 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> Patrik, Mohamed, the secretariat and I have worked on an edited version of
> the proposal finalization process and a new timeline spreadsheet that
> corresponds to the edits (attached and in Dropbox at
> and https://www.dropbox.com/s/pqztqy8fpox9pel/TimelineGraphic-v9.xlsx?dl=0
> In the proposal finalization process:
> - The sub-steps are now numbered. We added proposed time frames to each of
> the numbered sub-steps. In the F2F meeting we heard support for maintaining
> the original time frames, so we did not modify them here. Note, however,
> that in Step 4 this is basically impossible — we allotted ourselves 4 weeks
> to obtain public comments, analyze them, send issues to the communities,
> and produce the final proposal! We put a note in about that being
> - In steps 1 and 2, we have reversed the order of the “if” clauses
> concerning whether or not operational community work is needed. It is much
> easier to depict the steps graphically if the potential OC work is listed
> first and then the milestone is at the end. We didn’t change any of the
> substance, just the order in which the words appear.
> - For steps that are milestones, they say “milestone” rather than listing
> a time span.
> In the timeline spreadsheet:
> - We depicted the original timeline/time spans, as reflected in the edited
> proposal finalization process, in two ways — first on two separate sheets,
> and then on one combined sheet. Not sure which one is easier for people to
> follow so we included both.
> - I counted up the weeks in our original plan and it was about 28 weeks,
> or 6.5 months, from Jan 15 to Jul 31. But because the weeks-to-months
> mapping is not exact (e.g., some months have more than 4 weeks, partial
> weeks, etc.), if we had mapped that plan out generically week-by-week in
> the spreadsheet, it would have totaled 26 weeks (4 weeks/month, at 6.5
> months, gives 26 weeks). The "Original Timeline with CWG Dependency" tabs
> lists 31 weeks, which has the original 26 weeks plus the 5 additional weeks
> built into Step 4 in the proposal finalization process. So this is closer
> to 8 months rather than the 6 number we were discussing on Saturday, if we
> stick closely to the proposal finalization process and assume that we will
> need the operational community work periods, which we may or may not.
> - We’ve included an alternative timeline as well, called Optimized, to
> respond to what people were saying in the room about optimizing and
> parallelizing our work. There is a note on the spreadsheet itself that
> explains the optimizations. We would need to decide as a group about
> whether we want to go down the "Original with CWG Dependency" path or the
> Optimized path. All of the steps are still there and they use the
> previously defined time frames, but they occur more in parallel.
> Please send your feedback and opinions about the documents.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg