[Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 09:51:33 UTC 2014


Alissa,
I saw a document with  several track changes accompanied by you explanatory
Note .
Then I asked myself the followings\
What are these changes ?
Who made them?
why they were made?
WHAT WAS THE REASONS TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES?
if I  misunderstood the issue, pls correct me
Regards
Kavouss

2014-12-09 3:05 GMT+01:00 Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au>:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Narelle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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
> *To:* ICG
> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] Please review: proposal finalization process
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *Alissa Cooper <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>
>
> *Cc: *ICG <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> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve proposed a bunch of edits to this document, attached, and also in
> dropbox here:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/wvemyk00s5l86w9/proposal-finalization-process-v3-pw.docx?dl=0
>
>
> Some of these changes reflect my understanding of the timeline, as shown
> in the Excel file here:
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/07zp3xlgx2uvwcs/TimelineDiscussion-v7.docx?dl=0
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141209/e90fa8ee/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list