[Internal-cg] ICANN52

Tue Feb 17 12:27:57 UTC 2015

Thanks Alissa for the reminder and the reference ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 7:29 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: WUKnoben; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52

As Narelle pointed out, we ask about this explicitly in section IV
bullet point 5 in our RFP:

"Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to
take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur before
they are completed."

So we expect the proposal we receive from the CWG to address this. My
understanding is that the bulk of the CWG's work on RFP section IV will
continue once the group has more clarity on the content of the response
to RFP section III.

Alissa

On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:20 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

Further to the below exchange, here is what Larry said regarding
implementation in the IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN
Accountability Information Session
<http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountab
ility>  on Sun. ..

"AND I ALSO ASK THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THE NEED TO
DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, AND TEST THESE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A FINAL
TRANSITION, CAN THEY GET IT ALL DONE IN A TIME FRAME CONSISTENT WITH THE
EXPECTATIONS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS?I ASKED TODAY AT A MEETING SOME
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CWG WERE PRESENT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY
DISCUSSION OR ANY ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE TO
IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE.  AND
I HAVE TO SAY NO ONE COULD ANSWER THAT, AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS
THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS TO BE  FACTORED INTO THE TIME FRAME FOR
TRANSITION.  AND IF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO
IMPLEMENT, WELL, THAT WILL DELAY THE ULTIMATE TRANSITION OF THE IANA
FUNCTIONS."

Kind Regards

--Manal

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 10:18 AM
To: WUKnoben; internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52

Just recognized that my response to this thread did not address
Wolf-Ulrich's point regarding 'implementation' ..

I'm not sure whether Wolf-Ulrich is referring to the same session, but I
recall that this was also raised as a question by Larry to the co-chairs
of the CWG at a GAC session, I believe on Sun. ..

I agree with Milton this needs further scrutiny, as we need to have a
common understanding on what we mean by implementation here and how does
this align with NTIA's expectation ..

Kind regards

--Manal

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:52 AM
To: WUKnoben; internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN52

In my assessment to Larry Stricklings remarks I was erroneously
referring to the "names and protocols" proposals (see attached). I meant
the "numbers and protocols" proposals.

This is owed to a long week of discussions around the matter.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: WUKnoben <mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> 

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:10 AM

To: internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:internal-cg at icann.org> 

Subject: ICANN52

Dear colleagues,

my take from the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore re the IANA Stewardship
Transition and the future ICG related work:

*	see statement from Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Chair:

	<< 

	We have received several questions requesting clarification as
to how ICANN will handle receipt of the proposal from the ICG and the
Work Stream 1 proposal from the CCWG.  We hope the following will be
helpful.

	NTIA is expecting coordinated proposals from both groups.  They
cannot act on just one.  Further, they expect the ICG proposal will take
into account the accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG.  We are
heartened by the close coordination between the groups, including
liaisons from the ICG to the CCWG. ICANN is expecting to receive both
proposals at roughly the same time.  When ICANN receives these
proposals, we will forward them promptly and without modification to
NTIA. As we have previously stated, if we do submit the proposals with
an accompanying communication of comments, they will be on points we had
already shared with the community during the development of the
proposals.

	We therefore encourage the groups to continue coordinating
closely to ensure ICANN receives the proposals together and is able to
provide them to NTIA in a coordinated manner.

	With respect to improvements in our accountability, we are
definitely open to improvements.

            >>

    He's referring to the Names Community Proposal as an output from the
CWG-stewardship and the CCWG-accountability.

    Consequently the ICG would have to accomodate the overall timeline
accordingly.

*	Larry Strickling, NTIA Assistant Secretary, in a session on
Sunday, 09 Feb., pointed out that NTIA is expecting a common proposal
from the three communities (protocols, numbers, names). The proposal as
a whole should be ready for implementation.

    From this point of view I wonder whether the names and protocol
proposals delivered in the present version reach this level of
readiness. I'd like to suggest beginning a related ICG discussion about.
this item and the potential consequences.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150217/6e680680/attachment.html>