[Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Thu Jan 15 06:49:40 UTC 2015
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> Thanks Alissa,
> I think this is spot on.
> Keith Drazek
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:05 PM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] RFP, CCWG-Accountability, and timeline
> Kavouss started a discussion on our call earlier today concerning the relationship between the CCWG-Accountability and the ICG, and since we ran the call right down to the end, I wanted to reiterate some points here and make sure we are all on the same page.
> In our RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> we asked for a complete formal response from each of the operational communities: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. Each community was convened in its own way and chartered its own group to develop an RFP response. The group that was created for names was the CWG; for numbers it was CRISP; and for protocol parameters it was IANAPLAN.
> RFP Section III asks the communities to detail the changes they propose to the existing IANA oversight and accountability mechanisms. If any proposal that gets sent to us does not include these details, we will have to send it back to the community to be completed. We cannot proceed with proposals that are missing the oversight and accountability component.
> We set January 15 as a target for receiving responses from the communities. For the ICG, this is the first step in the process — not the last. We have explained the full process that will take place over the rest of the year to get from individual community proposals to a final proposal for submission to NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>. As such, while the responses we receive from the communities need to be complete in detailing their proposed transition plans, those plans need not be actually implemented before the responses are submitted to the ICG.
> Indeed, one feature that all of the proposals may end up having in common is that they create expectations or conditions that must be met or steps that must be carried out before the transition itself may take place (but not before the proposal is submitted to the ICG), and that various other bodies may need to act to meet those conditions or take those steps. For example, the CWG proposal might outline accountability measures that it expects the CCWG-Accountability to take up. The CRISP proposal might outline steps it expects the RIR legal teams to take on. The IANAPLAN proposal lists a couple of expectations about acknowledgements it expects other parties to make.
> I think it’s perfectly fine — and expected — for the proposals to have this feature when they come to us. We didn’t ask the communities to finish the implementation of the transition. We asked them to propose plans. We have many months of further review and public comment in front of us, and we have established that if issues arise further down the line, we will send the proposals back to the communities to work those issues out. Thus if we receive a proposal that puts a condition on another body and it turns out that that body cannot or will not fulfill the condition, we have both the time and the process in place to work through it. I hope we won’t have to do that, but we’ve built our process to accommodate it.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg