[Internal-cg] ICG call

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Tue Feb 24 12:01:08 UTC 2015


prior to the ICG call tomorrow where timeline as well as step2 assessment shall be discussed I’d like to draw your attention to ongoing CWG discussion re the level of implementation detail needed to be covered by the proposals (see attached).

I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.

I’d like to encourage for the discussion tomorrow in order to come up with guidlines applicable for all the communities.

Best regards


From: Greg Shatan 
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:59 PM
To: Jonathan Robinson 
Cc: John Poole ; cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John.  Because it's not our opinion that matters.  I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal.

For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)?  Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature (or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?

Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something in between?

For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one?

I don't want to make more work for everybody (including me).  And I'd rather have less work than more, and get this done faster rather than slower.  So, I would actually prefer to be wrong.

But let's find out from the ICG what they would consider to be a complete proposal.  That's what matters.  They in turn can consult Larry Strickling if they feel there's any ambiguity in their own minds.  Then we can go forward with certainty.

I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150224/756e5bcc/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list