[Internal-cg] ICG call

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Tue Feb 24 23:08:46 UTC 2015

I'm travelling, but due to be at my destination before the ICG call starts. Apologies in advance if I'm late to join.


On 24 February 2015 21:01:08 GMT+09:00, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de> wrote:
>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?
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org

Paul Wilson,  Director General,  APNIC 

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list