[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 8 17:03:33 UTC 2015

The last version that you submitted to the ICG with 9 months delay

2015-02-08 16:51 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> Hi Kavouss,
> Which tab of the spreadsheet are you referring to? The Optimized timeline?
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> On Feb 8, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Alissa,
> 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
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 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
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zmvchgfl7fi2al/proposal-finalization-process-v6-alc.docx?dl=0
>>  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 unrealistic.
>> - 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.
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150208/4137bd00/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list