[Internal-cg] ICG call
alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Feb 24 21:06:20 UTC 2015
I generally agree with what Jari says below and wanted to add in a few more thoughts.
I think it’s important to distinguish the time at which the proposal will be submitted to NTIA from the time at which the transition will take place. These are two different milestones. We have the RFP that asks the communities to produce proposals so that we can get them submitted to NTIA. If the CWG has questions about what belongs in the proposal or what criteria we will use to evaluate the component proposals, we should certainly elaborate on those points. But that elaboration is a separate matter from the decision to actually move forward with the transition. That decision rests with NTIA (and ICANN, as the contracted party), not with the ICG.
The CRISP proposal provides a good illustration of this. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for us to get to the end of our assessment process with the CRISP proposal incorporated as-is into the final transition proposal, and to submit the final proposal to NTIA (via the ICANN Board) even if the SLA and Review Committee described in the CRISP proposal have not yet been finalized (although of course it would be great if the RIRs make progress toward finalization between now and then). Whether the NTIA contract gets terminated before those two items are finalized is not a question for us to answer.
On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> Quick reaction:
> First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
> Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
> But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg