[Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process

Narelle Clark narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Tue Dec 9 02:05:08 UTC 2014

I seem to have missed the part where we agreed that the ICANN board needed to send a letter of endorsement or otherwise. Surely as a body independent of the ICG they can do whatever they see fit (and ought to).

Why does it need to be referred to here?

I can see a point in including a piece where we go through a review process with the ICANN board on the basis that it is, ultimately, the contracted party here.



From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 2:45 AM
Subject: [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
Importance: High


Please take a look at the proposal finalization process document and the thread below. We really need to wrap this up, hopefully on this week's call or shortly thereafter.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v3
Date: December 1, 2014 at 3:37:31 PM PST
To: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net<mailto:pwilson at apnic.net>>
Cc: ICG <internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>>

Hi Paul,

I reviewed your proposed edits to v3 and my comments are below. I've also uploaded and attached an edited version that reflects my comments and includes the finalization process steps provided by Kuo. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process>

On Nov 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net<mailto:pwilson at apnic.net>> wrote:

Hi all,

I've proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in dropbox here:


Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown in the Excel file here:


In particular this timeline show the release of a draft proposal in March, and a final proposal in June; so I've added these extra steps to the process.

Agreed, good to have these other milestones in there.

Also, please note I've proposed a few substantial additional steps in this process:

- A public call for comments on the community proposal development processes (deadline 31 Jan 2015);  this will allow us to formally gather remaining concerns, or statements of support for the processes which produced community proposals.

I have concerns about asking the communities to duplicate efforts here. RFP Section VI already asks the communities to document their processes, level of consensus achieved, and areas of contention or disagreement. We also made it explicit in the RFP that if people felt that they could not provide comments within those processes, they could send them to the ICG forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/> and we've been passing those on to the communities.

The target deadline for RFP responses is 15 January, so I don't think we want to ask people to separately document similar information in a parallel process that we run ourselves at the same time when we're expecting the communities to be focusing on finishing their RFP responses. I also do not think it's appropriate for us to try to circumvent the community processes - if the process comments we receive after receiving the proposals themselves and the statements made in the proposals are inconsistent, it's not clear what we would do with that information.

My edits in the attached reflect this view - I've re-combined into a single step 1 the ICG's initial reviews of both process and substance.

- A specific provision for ICG consultation with communities and other stakeholders during assessment of the first draft proposal.

- Incorporating the ICANN meetings in February and June 2015 into the process as opportunities for (in Feb) communities to present their proposals to the ICANN audience, and then (in June) ICG to present the final transition proposal.

- Presentation of the final proposal to the ICANN board, during a meeting with them; rather than mere "transmission" to them.

I would prefer if we not be overly prescriptive about any of the above items, nor about the exact structure or format of any text we might draft to accompany the transition proposal. We have already declared in the timeline our intention to consult with everyone, so I don't think we need to say it again. Obviously we will be talking to people at various ICANN meetings, but there will surely be other venues where the proposal gets discussed (as it should be), so I'd rather not single out any particular meetings in this document. And I'm not sure why we would need to specifically meet the ICANN Board in order to send them the final proposal, particularly in light the statement of finalization steps that we now have from Kuo.

Looking forward to feedback from you and others.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141209/4f6d466b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list