[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Jon Nevett jon at donuts.co
Mon Feb 23 14:20:28 UTC 2015


Agree with Manal 100%. Jon

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 5:04 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> 
> Glad we have a happy ending :) !! but couldn't resist noting that:
> 
> If you are of the view that CCWG-Accountability work is an essential
> part of the final proposal, great:
> - Larry Strickling noted this
> - CWG-IANA is coordinating closely with CCWG-Accountability
> - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly
> through the CWG-IANA Names proposal
> 
> If you are of the view that no direct coordination is needed between ICG
> and CCWG-Accountability, this is also fine:
> - There is no direct coordination currently taking place
> - Relevant Accountability parts are expected to reach the ICG indirectly
> through the CWG-IANA Names proposal
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:22 PM
> To: Jon Nevett
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process
> updates
> 
> To me it appears that we completely agree that we should not initiate 
> any formal action/coordination at this point in time. ;-)
> 
> 
>> On 20.02.15 14:45 , Jon Nevett wrote:
>> Daniel:
>> 
>> Great questions for the group.  All I am saying is that to many of us
> these issues are inextricably intertwined and any efforts to separate
> would not be conducive to achieving consensus.  I agree with Kavouss who
> said that we simply need to let the CWG and the CCWG do their work.
> Let's not distract them, which could cause further delay.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jon,
>>> 
>>> can you be specific on what coordination is necessary *at this point
> in time*? What is it that we should ask CCWG?
>>> 
>>> Further it would help me to understand your point if you could
> speculate briefly about what questions could become relevant in the near
> future.
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>>> On 20.02.15 14:33 , Jon Nevett wrote:
>>>> Daniel:
>>>> 
>>>> Especially considering the views of many of us in the naming
> community, this specific provision in our charter, and prior statement
> of the NTIA linking ICANN accountability to the transition, I suspect
> that you won't get consensus of the group that we shouldn't formally
> coordinate on the issue of ICANN accountability.  Efforts to avoid the
> issue would be a waste of our time and resources and will draw lines in
> the sand that need not be drawn.
>>>> 
>>>>> Nevertheless, the two processes are
>>>>> interrelated and interdependent
>>>>> and should appropriately coordinate their work.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Jon
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Parallel" lines do not touch.
>>>>> Even if they are related to each other by being parallel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Appropriate coordination should be appropriate. A pre-requisite for
> appropriateness is necessity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *At this point in time* I do not see necessity for *formal*
> coordination.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Therefore I stated that I am opposed to discussing CCWG work
> formally in ICG and that remains my position. I strongly recommend that
> ICG members consider the consequences very carefully before raising CCWG
> work formally in ICG. It is not up to us to create linkages. We should
> remain "focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of
> IANA functions".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 20.02.15 14:12 , Jon Nevett wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I did want to clarify one statement in your email.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  <Our charter does not touch ICANN accountability in any way.>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From our charter:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside
> a
>>>>>> parallel and
>>>>>> related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.  While
> maintaining the
>>>>>> accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to
> both
>>>>>> processes,
>>>>>> this group's  scope is focused on the arrangements required for
> the
>>>>>> continuance
>>>>>> of  IANA  functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner
> after
>>>>>> the expiry of
>>>>>> the  NTIA ICANN  contract.  Nevertheless, the two processes are
>>>>>> interrelated and interdependent
>>>>>> and should appropriately coordinate their work.
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
>>>>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>>
> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> we disagree. As far as the ICG remit is concerned there can be a
> valid
>>>>>>> CWG response that does not reference any CCWG output. It is up to
> NTIA
>>>>>>> to consider our (ICG's) output and CCWG's output once they are
>>>>>>> transmitted by ICANN and to base their actions on these.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is entirely up to CWG to decide what dependencies CWG creates
> in
>>>>>>> their response to us, including dependencies to CCWG output or
> even
>>>>>>> its implementation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You also misunderstand me again. I do not suggest that we push
> CWG in
>>>>>>> any way. All I am suggesting is that we signal to CWG that we are
>>>>>>> willing to work expeditiously *if* they give us a response that
> allows
>>>>>>> us to do that and if they give it to us on or before the date
> they
>>>>>>> communicated to us.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PS: I am not a diplomat. I prefer direct references to persons,
>>>>>>> statements or actions over oblique ones.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anecdote: a quite senior diplomat in the family once taught me
> that it
>>>>>>> is very very important to be clear and prevent misunderstandings,
>>>>>>> while remaining civil and polite. History seems to bear this out.
>>>>>>> Misunderstandings have caused a lot of grief. So I prefer to be
> clear
>>>>>>> while making a reasonable effort to stay civil and polite. ;-)
>>>>>>> Diplomatic ambiguity is far far overrated.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 20.02.15 13:33 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear All
>>>>>>>> It seems from the very beginning that few one of ICG members are
> in
>>>>>>>> hurry and push CWG unnecessarily.
>>>>>>>> Response from CWG must be first meet the accountability of work
>>>>>>>> stream 1 of CCWG.
>>>>>>>> Without the confirmation from CCWG , any response from CWG is
> not valid
>>>>>>>> People should kindly allow us to do our work duly.properly and
> prudently
>>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:44, Daniel Karrenberg
>>>>>>>>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
> <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Chairs,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thank you for doing this work. It is very clear and useful.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I fully agree that we should progress the responses we have in
> hand
>>>>>>>>> as much as we can at this time. Not only is this the best use
> of
>>>>>>>>> time; it will also prevent us from frustrating the communities
> that
>>>>>>>>> did respond on time. We should proceed with this as you suggest
> and
>>>>>>>>> I ask you to make a conscious effort to keep the IETF and the
> RIRs
>>>>>>>>> informed of this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We should also agree that we will work to the "Optimized" time
> line
>>>>>>>>> if we possibly can. This is *only* possible if we receive a
> high
>>>>>>>>> quality response from the CWG which is simple enough to be
>>>>>>>>> implemented in the time allotted. Whether or not we receive
> such a
>>>>>>>>> response is not up to us; it is up to the CWG. However I
> consider it
>>>>>>>>> important that we clearly and loudly signal our willingness to
> work
>>>>>>>>> as quickly as we possibly can if the CWG response allows us to
> do
>>>>>>>>> so. We should project that we are willing to do our best. Maybe
> this
>>>>>>>>> will help the CWG to focus; one can always hope.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If, on the other hand, the CWG response requires substantial
> work we
>>>>>>>>> should revert to the 'Original-Combined' time line which is
> 100%
>>>>>>>>> consistent with our earlier stated plans.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am alos *very* concerned about creating unnecessary
>>>>>>>>> inter-dependencies between our (ICG) work and the CCWG process
> and
>>>>>>>>> output. Our charter is to produce a proposal for specific
>>>>>>>>> operational arrangements. Our charter does not touch ICANN
>>>>>>>>> accountability in any way. As far as I am concerned there are
>>>>>>>>> absolutely no inter-dependencies between our work and the work
> of
>>>>>>>>> the CCWG at this point in time. The CCWG will hand its output
> to the
>>>>>>>>> ICANN board totally independent of our work and output.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *If* the CWG decides to refer to CCWG output in their response
> to
>>>>>>>>> us, this situation may change and things can potentially become
> very
>>>>>>>>> complicated. But at this point in time we do not know this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Summary: Let's proceed expeditiously with work on the responses
> we
>>>>>>>>> have in hand. Let's agree to make an effort to work to the
>>>>>>>>> "Optimized" time line if the CWG response allows us to. Let's
> agree
>>>>>>>>> to work to the "Original-Combined" time line if the CWG
> response
>>>>>>>>> needs substantial work. Let's watch the CCWG work, but let us
> not
>>>>>>>>> discuss it formally until we cannot avoid it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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