[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Feb 23 17:22:35 UTC 2015

I wanted to respond to some of the points below made by Daniel, Martin, Kavouss, and Manal concerning the timeline. I’ve moved them all over to this thread since they are about the substance of the timeline and not our call agenda.

Along the lines of what Manal has said, it may be that trying to publish a detailed updated timeline right now is over-specifying things. I think we need to keep in mind the framing that Patrik used when discussing this at the F2F meeting, where the central question was: what are the next steps that the ICG needs to take? Specifically, I think we have two questions to answer:

(1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal?
(2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal?

For (1), I think we have good agreement that we should do the following:
- Step 2 assessment (including further consultation with the IETF and RIRs as necessary). We have already started this.
- Produce a draft combined proposal containing the IETF and RIR proposals
- Monitoring and issue-spotting within the CWG proposal development process

There appears to be some debate about whether we should also run a public comment process before receiving the CWG proposal. We should discuss that further.

For (2), it may be simplest to not provide much detail right now about our plans. We can revisit this question on a regular basis over the coming months as the CWG proposal development process advances. 

Thus, I would support publishing a brief note along the lines that Manal suggests, rather than trying to update the timeline in detail right now, as long as we make it clear what our next steps are.


On Feb 23, 2015, at 3:38 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> [MI]: As mentioned in Singapore I would be cautious not to set an aggressive timeline and miss or change the deadline again; and would be equally cautious not to set a relaxed timeline that may be misinterpreted as lack of commitment .. I think we need to accurately calculate the necessary time which I believe is a bit difficult with so many critical factors being unclear .. That said is there an urgency for us go live with a new timeline now .. Can't we just:
> -          Add a disclaimer on the original timeline, stating that this was based on receiving the 3 proposals at the same time, and around Jan 15th , 2015 and will be updated in due course as things become clearer
> -          Thank the protocol parameters community and numbers community for the submitted proposals and reiterate ICG's commitment to proceed with steps that can be done independently with both proposals
> -          Thank the names community for the dedication and hard work solving more complex issues, and re-iterate ICG's commitment to closely monitor the process and bring to their attention anything that may help spare us post-submission ICG-CWG iterations ..

On Feb 23, 2015, at 4:52 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All 
> To be brief,
> I support Martin, s views
> I do nit agree with two consultation fir Protocol and number  and only one Name
> Three three must have two.
> I also believe that 15 days is too short
> Minimum 21 days fir each and perhaps the second one 28 days
> Kavouss   
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 19 Feb 2015, at 19:01, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks Alissa,
>> I’m afraid that I will not be able to join next week’s call (it will be during my night and I am driving the following morning early).  I am also away on holiday from tonight until Tuesday late.  So I thought it might be useful to put down just a couple of comments on the timeline.
>> I am basing my points on the optimised sheet.  I welcome what you are trying to do so that we have a real sense of delivery by end September.  I do not feel greatly convinced…
>> We obviously do need to show substantive progress by end of September.  At the least, we ought to be able to say to NTIA and more widely:
>> 1.       This is the direction of travel
>> 2.       These are the pieces that need to be finalised
>> 3.       This is the timescale for those pieces to be delivered.
>> 4.       So this is when the transition could be finalised (and then there is also the implementation period – the more complicated our solution, the longer that stage will take).
>> On specific points, I am concerned with the way this schedule deals with the two consultation periods.  I’m not sure that the first looking at the IETF & RIR pieces and the second the full works really works for me and 15 days for this second one seems unrealistic.  Yes, interested parties will only just have gone through the consultation period, but in fact what we will be looking for here is how the different elements will bed together.  So shouldn’t we really be looking at step 4.1 ending end week 1 August, all subsequent steps shifting right two blocks and then an iteration for a second consultation to closure as per the previous timescale?
>> We should also look some time after delivery of the CWG input into the timescale to prepare the right material for NTIA for end September (or more correctly beginning of October when they can start to work on it again).
>> Thanks and have a good call next week.
>> Martin

On Feb 20, 2015, at 2:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150223/2e05a0a6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list